`Constitutional History of the Western World'

Hello Bill:

This is certainly a voluminous work and doubtless is the fruit of a lifetime of labor. The pitch, however, needs a major overhaul; it seems as if you are going out of your way to discourage people from even wanting to read the work and you seem to be setting them up to be contentious before they even begin to read your work.

I am fascinated by your vast knowledge of history-especially that which has been neglected or even suppressed.

Blessings to you and may you enjoy the fruit of your labor.

James Revoir

Hi James,
Thanks for your kind words. All the best, Bill

Intellectually energetic book, initially, but your assumption that a bunch of prehistoric goatherders writing crappy episodic junk later-compiled into a big "religious" book have some contemporary authority. It look like a retarded premise to me. I'm just wondering whether you can justify that in any way. I mean...it looks transparently unjustifiable to me. Most of the Bible is like "Authonomy"--it's absolutely unreadable crap done by morons operating at low intellectual wattage. The opening of "Genesis" has some Kafkaesque appeal, and "Job" is like a good episode of "Laverne and Shirley." The rest of it sucks my balls.

this book is powerful, and well thought. i think it deserves a tighter and more concise long pitch, also broken into paragraphs. grab us, the reader. make us want to read. it is good material...
j
what every woman should know

Bill, This is very well written, greatly detailed book. This is evidently a long time study and and coolection of historical and Religous references.
Impressively well informative. Not only Christianity, it has earthy last milliniums of westwern and Middle eastern history.
One big broblem, that is the font, wasn't adjuatable. I do want to have a through read through all the chapters, that i could not adjust the size by bar to read. Please adjust the chapters and fond.
Moreover, anything, your statement, by referencing that Jesus was real and was not bogus and etc, which is clearly evidents in your biblical revelational references and i am a believer of that too, from Quran, Jesus was real and devine from God. However, about the cross, that was vague and irrelative, which i will not argue here at all, to avoid contradiction in your word. It is paraise worthy that you gathered information, and written suah a huge volume of work.

Bill, This is very well written, greatly detailed book. This is evidently a long time study and and coolection of historical and Religous references.
Impressively well informative. Not only Christianity, it has earthy last milliniums of westwern and Middle eastern history.
One big broblem, that is the font, wasn't adjuatable. I do want to have a through read through all the chapters, that i could not adjust the size by bar to read. Please adjust the chapters and fond.
Moreover, anything, your statement, by referencing that Jesus was real and was not bogus and etc, which is clearly evidents in your biblical revelational references and i am a believer of that too, from Quran, Jesus was real and devine from God. However, about the cross, that was vague and irrelative, which i will not argue here at all, to avoid contradiction in your word. It is paraise worthy that you gathered information, and written suah a huge volume of work.

Your reasoning on True Faith and True Church is fascinating.
You got me calling friends and asking questions on the Bible
Its brave of you to embark on this writing journey

Hi Bill

Will definitively have a nose through this as I have a few spaces on my book shelf and WL. Would you be so kind as to have a quick look at my book - The List. Feel free to leave a comment.
ta very much.

David J Baron

Bill

I thought I would take a look at the part of your work which deals with an area that I know about. That seems to me the best way for me to get a perspective on what you are saying. So I looked at what you had to say about the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism

Unfortunately I found that you completely misunderstand the intentons of the apostles and the early Christians. The gospels were written by 1st century Jews, for 1st century Jews, about a 1st century Jew. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of a 1st century Jew you will not understand them. And the only way to put yourself in that mindset is to read other Jewish literature of the same period.

I didn't set out to plug my own book, but if you read The Gospels' Veiled Agenda you will have a better idea of what I mean.

Best wishes

Harry Freedman

Hello Harry,

I took a look at your bio and your pitches. You have an impressive bio. About your pitches. My assessment of the the `Holy Grail' runs as follows: Case 1) where Jesus is the Messiah, the Son mentioned in Psalm ii and the Mighty God mentioned in Isaiah ix. 6, then, in this case, why would this make the material cup used at the Last Supper a holy object? It's just a material thing. Certainly no scripture says it is holy. I suppose if one took a materialistic interpretation of Matthew xxvi. 28 one could say it is holy. And in Case 2, where Jesus is a false messiah, then, of course, the cup used at the Last Supper is really of no interest, unless of course one believes Jesus was diabolical, e.g., if one believes he drags souls to hell by dragging them away from God's True Law - the Mosaic Law, then one might try to argue that the cup used at the Last Supper is diabolical.

I believe Jesus is the True Messiah, but, to my mind, that doesn't make the material grail either holy or interesting. If Jesus is the True Messiah then one must be concerned with spiritual things, with the spiritual meaning of Matthew xxvi. 28 and Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34.

Maimonides said the Mosaic Law would never be replaced. And of course the Torah itself is very clear: it is an eternal law. One of my main arguments directed toward the Jews is: Since you reject Jesus, then, aren't you still under the Mosaic Law? Don't you have to try your best to obey all of it? And that's tough to do. Recall that people who strive to obey the Mosaic Law must execute adulterers, execute blasphemers, execute sorcerers, execute rebellious children, execute people who profane the sabbath day etc. This means the Mosaic Law, the Old Law, goes to war against the world. The New Law goes to war against the world also, but in a different way. Recall Ezekeil xxv. 20 - `Wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good...' To live under the Mosaic Law means one must try ones best to obey some bad laws. The Jews have not taken Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34 and declared a New Law, that is a New Law devoid of Jesus. Judaism is primarily divided between the Ultra Orthodox, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Non-observing sects, and none of these sects has proclaimed that its creed is none other than the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, and alluded to in Ezekiel xxvi. 24-28 and Isaiah 59. 20-21.

You write of my book, `Unfortunately I found that you completely misunderstand the intentons of the apostles and the early Christians. The gospels were written by 1st century Jews, for 1st century Jews, about a 1st century Jew. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of a 1st century Jew you will not understand them. And the only way to put yourself in that mindset is to read other Jewish literature of the same period.'

The New Testament gives us a long series of take it or leave it propositions. The fifth chapter of Matthew is either accurate or it is inaccurate (the 5th chapter of Matthew contains the beatitudes and a good deal of discourse on hellfire). John i. 1-15 is either accurate or it is inaccurate. John xiv. 23-26 is either accurate or it is inaccurate. John xv. 6 is either accurate or it is inaccurate. Putting yourself in the mindset of 1st century Jewish literature might or might not lead you to make some wise decisions about the gospels. The Jewish literature of the 1st century which was hostile to Jesus was literature which preached the Mosaic Law. If the Mosaic Law is still God's Law for God's people, then obey it. Execute those adulterers. Execute those blasphemers. Execute those sabbath violators. But if the eternal Mosaic Law has been put in abeyance - that is, if it is still an eternal law but is not observed, and if we are under a New Law, then, obey the New Law.

To quote from your blog, you write: `The failure of Jesus's revolution came about, not with his crucifixion, but long before with the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist. From this time forward Jesus and his disciples faced an uphill struggle. Their ultimate demise was inevitable, and Jesus knew this, as the narrative bears out.
Understanding the true nature of the Gospels does not diminish Christianity in any way. Indeed, it supports it. If you really want to know what Jesus was hoping to achieve, and if you would like to discover the true identity of the Holy Grail, read this book!'

According to Christianity, Jesus did not fail in His mission.

You write: `Understanding the true nature of the Gospels does not diminish Christianity in any way.'

Christians agree with that statement. But is that really what you want to say? Are you saying that understanding the true nature of the Gospels supports the validity of Matthew xxvi. 28, Matthew xvi. 13-19, John xv. 6, Hohn xiv. 23-26 and John i. 1-14? If so, then, you are a Christian.

If your position is that an understanding of the true nature of the Gospels shows that Jesus is a false Messiah, then, you certainly don't want to say, to quote you again, `Understanding the true nature of the Gospels does not diminish Christianity in any way.'

If you are saying that a true understanding of the Gospels shows that Matthew xvi. 13-19, John i. 1-15, John xiv. 23-26 and John xv. 6 etc., etc. are invalid, then, this certainly diminishes Christianity! Christianity is nothing if those scriptures are invalid!

It's true that most of the New Testament scriptures which declare that Jesus is God come from St. Paul - Col ii. 8-10, I Timothy iii. 16 etc. But John i. 1-15 says what it says. Presumably, if Jesus had made it clear right from the beginning that He was the Divine Son - the Second Person in a Divine Trinity - then He would have been executed as a blasphemer very quickly by the Jews. But the Divine plan demanded that He be crucified by the Romans, and that He not be immediately executed by the Jews, and, therefore, Jesus did not openly declare that He was God. He had to be sly about things, so that the Divine plan could be accomplished.

In order to sell books, I believe you need to immediately address this pitch of yours in your blog which says: `Understanding the true nature of the Gospels does not diminish Christianity in any way.' That's fine if you believe Jesus is the True Messiah, but it has to go if you believe He is a false messiah. The tough position that you are in is that, to sell books, you have to sell people the idea that there is either something holy or something diabolical about the grail. Otherwise, why should modern people care about an old cup? This is the same position that I'm facing with the sign of the cross.

Sincerely, Bill

Bill

I thought I would take a look at the part of your work which deals with an area that I know about. That seems to me the best way for me to get a perspective on what you are saying. So I looked at what you had to say about the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism

Unfortunately I found that you completely misunderstand the intentons of the apostles and the early Christians. The gospels were written by 1st century Jews, for 1st century Jews, about a 1st century Jew. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of a 1st century Jew you will not understand them. And the only way to put yourself in that mindset is to read other Jewish literature of the same period.

I didn't set out to plug my own book, but if you read The Gospels' Veiled Agenda you will have a better idea of what I mean.

Best wishes

Harry Freedman

OK Bill, after looking at your chapters and mantra, I took a peak at your manuscript. First a couple of good writing tips, try to limit your sentences to 22 words, employ more paragraph breaks, and avoid the end less run-on sentences. Secondly, this seems to be more of a unabomber rant than a history book. Western history did not start with Christianity as the Greeks and Romans and citizens of other ancient cultures can attest. Thirdly, not sure where you are going with the abortion rant, but it definitely is a turn off. I think you need to identify your demographic here and severely edit your book toward it. Also, like myself, you need to have your book edited by a professional editor. Regardless of your work, this still needs the work of a professional editor.
Roberta

There is a good deal of repitition of material, such as the material dealing with the folly of Cafeteria Catholicism, and one might see this as a rant. But the material is complex and I'm trying to clarify matters. For instance, Pope Nicholas I., in the 9th century, had a dispute with the Emperor in Constantinople over two bishops, Ignatius and Photius. The Emperor considered the Pope an upstart and a usurper in claiming that he was the boss of the Emperor. Nicholas I. said he was the Vicar of Christ, the True Leader on earth of the True Church, and, therefore, he had a Divine right to give orders to the Emperor. Mutual anathemas resulted. Rome and Constantinople divided into two separate churches. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the pope is considered a heretic. In Roman Catholicism, the Emperor is considered a heretic, or at least a schismatic. If we advance more than 300 years, to the beginning of the 13th century, to the time of Pope Innocent III., we see that the doctrine of Nicholas I. - the doctrine which says the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, the True Leader of the True Church, is very much an official Roman Catholic Doctrine, just as it is to this day. Gregory VII., Urban II., and all the other Popes between Nicholas I. and Innocent III. preached this doctrine.

To escape from his enemies King John of England made himself a subject of Innocent III. He made England a fief of the Papacy. Innocent III. then commanded the English barons who were in revolt against John to obey John. But the barons did not obey King John because they saw him as an evil tyrant. Therefore, by continuing their revolt against John, these Roman Catholic barons also revolted against Innocent III. and against the Roman Catholic Church. If indeed the Pope is the True Leader on earth of the True Church, then, it makes no sense for anyone to rebel against the Pope, because, for one reason, one might go to hell for doing so. But, if the Pope is a usurper, then it makes excellent sense to say so. The barons were deluded, because, if Rome is the True Church, then one should always obey Rome. But, if Rome is not the True Church, if Rome has fallen away - recall II Thess ii - then one should renounce Roman Catholicism, as did the Emperors in Constantinople. The barons did neither. They did not obey Rome and they did not renounce Rome, therefore, they were sunk in delusion.

Rather than say my arguments against Cafeteria Catholicism or the Pro-Choice philosophy are like a unabomber rant, one might try to offer real arguments and real evidence to refute them

Intellectually energetic book, initially, but your assumption that a bunch of prehistoric goatherders writing crappy episodic junk later-compiled into a big "religious" book have some contemporary authority. It look like a retarded premise to me. I'm just wondering whether you can justify that in any way. I mean...it looks transparently unjustifiable to me. Most of the Bible is like "Authonomy"--it's absolutely unreadable crap done by morons operating at low intellectual wattage. The opening of "Genesis" has some Kafkaesque appeal, and "Job" is like a good episode of "Laverne and Shirley." The rest of it sucks my balls.

You have to admit he's got guts for saying this site is full of morons. Rommyo is from Chicago and I'm in Minneapolis, so I suppose we should be on our best behaviour at this British website. After all, Queen Elizabeth II. might visit this site. Why wouldn't she want to keep tabs on what thousands of her subjects might be writing? Regarding heathens like rommyo - and there certainly seem to be a lot of heathens in the UK - they trample on John xv 6 and John xv. 7. The former says: `If a man abide not in me [Jesus], he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' This tells us that there is a True Church - those who abide in Christ are in the True Church - and it tells us there is hellfire for those who are outside of the True Church. John xv. 7 says, `If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.' Frustration results of course when prayers are not answered. Believers might even regress into heathens. But if Jesus' words abide in one, then one will know that one is supposed to pray for things which are in God's will - recall the words from the Lord's Prayer - `Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done...'

Dear Bill

It is clear to me that this book is a labour of love for you, a mission. But I am a tiring, ageing hippy type of mum, who believes, more than anything, that when it comes to convincing anyone of anything, less is more. I have tried to put that into effect in my life. I admire anyone who has the conviction to upload this quantity of material onto Authonomy, and i wish you well with your work.

Fran Macilvey, "Trapped"

Thanks Fran. My book certainly throws a lot of information at the reader. Earlier drafts put my most controversial material - which is the material pertaining to our options surrounding the sign of the cross, the Book of Revelation, eternal hellfire and eternal paradise - right at the beginning of the manuscript. But, whether rightly or wrongly, I've decided it is best to first give the reader a thorough review of the scriptural evidence for a True Church and True Faith - for a Divine Law written on human hearts - before I delve into the traumatic material surrounding the Book of Revelation.

To defend II Thess ii and II Thess i. 8, one must defend Galatians i. 8. And to defend Galatians i. 8 one must defend St. Paul and his doctrine on slaves obeying their masters. All of this information, and other information like it, presses down upon the beleagured reader's tired psyche after a while. But the New Law must have a doctrine about slavery. And if a person aspires to understand the New Law, then, he must, sooner or later, understand what the New Law teaches in regards to slavery. There are no end of other similar sorts of important matters: what does the New Law teach about abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, taxation etc., etc. What does the New Law teach about the Book of Revelation? Revelation xxii. 18-19 gives us a take it or leave it proposition. Obviously, those people who don't believe in Judaism or Christianity will not believe in this New Law mentioned in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34. But if one does believe in the New Law, aka the Divine Law, aka the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then one will want to learn what this New Law is. And there's a lot to learn. I don't know how anyone could learn the New Law if he doesn't memorize a notebook filled with 300 or 500 of the most important scriptures, such as Revelation xxii. 18-19, John xv. 6, Galatians i. 8-12, II Thess i. 8 etc., etc. Much of the info on Roman Catholicism that I give might seem superfluous to many, but, perhaps, some people will want to read all of it.

Intellectually energetic book, initially, but your assumption that a bunch of prehistoric goatherders writing crappy episodic junk later-compiled into a big "religious" book have some contemporary authority. It look like a retarded premise to me. I'm just wondering whether you can justify that in any way. I mean...it looks transparently unjustifiable to me. Most of the Bible is like "Authonomy"--it's absolutely unreadable crap done by morons operating at low intellectual wattage. The opening of "Genesis" has some Kafkaesque appeal, and "Job" is like a good episode of "Laverne and Shirley." The rest of it sucks my balls.

Rommyo is all wrong about Bible of course, though the Bible can be a little difficult to understand. For instance, we know exactly what the Old Law, the Mosaic Law commands, but it is more difficult to explain the New Law. Malachi iii. 5 is part of the Old Testament, and yet it is also part of the New Law. All of the New Testament is part of the New Law, but not all of the Old Testament is.

I think I adequately explained that the Biblical account that the universe was created in 7 days, that the great deluge in Noah's time and that the gathering of every pair of species on earth and on to the ark etc., etc., can be seen as parables. Not everything in the Bible must be accepted as literal truth. Jesus taught in parables, obviously.

My main concern is with those Christians who say they accept John xiv. 23-26, Matthew xvi. 13-19, Galatians i. 8 II Thess i. 8 etc., but, in truth, they trample on those scriptures. The mainline Protestant sects exist because millions of mainline Protestants trample on Matthew xvi. 13-19 and John xiv. 23-26. To say there is no True Church is to trample on Matthew xvi. 13-19 and John xiv. 23-26. It sounds crazy to say that only the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is the True Church, or to say that only the Church of England is the True Church etc. But, again, to say there is no True Church is to trample on Matthew xvi. 13-19 and John xiv. 23-26. And if you trample on those scriptures you trample on Christianity.

It's understandable how clergymen could be dragged down because of issues with money. If a Protestant minister knows that preaching a pro-life sermon will drive pro-choicers out of his church, and that cash-flow problems will result, then he will feel pressure to not preach that pro-life sermon, and he might even find arguments which say the pro-life position is hostile to the New Law, especially if his Liberal flock is strongly pro-choice. I repeat Malachi iii. 5 in my book because the Born-Agains are always claiming they obey the New Law, i.e., the gospel. But the Born-Agains generally trample on Malachi iii. 5.

Dear Bill

It is clear to me that this book is a labour of love for you, a mission. But I am a tiring, ageing hippy type of mum, who believes, more than anything, that when it comes to convincing anyone of anything, less is more. I have tried to put that into effect in my life. I admire anyone who has the conviction to upload this quantity of material onto Authonomy, and i wish you well with your work.

Fran Macilvey, "Trapped"

Wow, sorry...I couldn't disagree with you more. Bashing on the sign of the cross? Bold. Of course why wouldn't a Christian living in the first century whose knowledge of Jesus is built around personal reading without any real qualification know more about what symbol should be used for Christianity than the early church who had been there. The cross is the central image of Christianity for a reason and the reason is a good one. If you fail to understand the significance of the selection of the symbol you are going to miss the significance of what Jesus did and what that really means as well. Perhaps you should leave the biblical interpretation to biblical scholars...

T. Edwards, what's up with your comment? You read my pitch but not my book. You have not addressed anything I wrote in Chapter 4 Section 2 (authonomy's system). There's a TOC right at the beginning which directs readers to my info on the sign of the cross.

OK Bill, after looking at your chapters and mantra, I took a peak at your manuscript. First a couple of good writing tips, try to limit your sentences to 22 words, employ more paragraph breaks, and avoid the end less run-on sentences. Secondly, this seems to be more of a unabomber rant than a history book. Western history did not start with Christianity as the Greeks and Romans and citizens of other ancient cultures can attest. Thirdly, not sure where you are going with the abortion rant, but it definitely is a turn off. I think you need to identify your demographic here and severely edit your book toward it. Also, like myself, you need to have your book edited by a professional editor. Regardless of your work, this still needs the work of a professional editor.
Roberta

Bill,
I read through the first chapter. I was highly complex. I did not really understand much of what you wrote. It was theory I had never heard of before. I guess you know alot about the religions of the world of which I am unaware. God Bless You.
MaryBe

Thank you Mary for reading Chapter 1. Only 29 more chapters to go! Don't let this formulation that I use - true Christians teach religion with the authority of God - confuse you. It's just a formulation based on Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, Ezekiel xxxvi. 24-28, Isaiah lix. 20-21 and Matthew xxvi. 28. Perhaps the formulation is less than perfect, but, still, it seems to follow logically from those scriptures. All the Best, Bill

Bill,
I read through the first chapter. I was highly complex. I did not really understand much of what you wrote. It was theory I had never heard of before. I guess you know alot about the religions of the world of which I am unaware. God Bless You.
MaryBe

Intellectually energetic book, initially, but your assumption that a bunch of prehistoric goatherders writing crappy episodic junk later-compiled into a big "religious" book have some contemporary authority. It look like a retarded premise to me. I'm just wondering whether you can justify that in any way. I mean...it looks transparently unjustifiable to me. Most of the Bible is like "Authonomy"--it's absolutely unreadable crap done by morons operating at low intellectual wattage. The opening of "Genesis" has some Kafkaesque appeal, and "Job" is like a good episode of "Laverne and Shirley." The rest of it sucks my balls.

this is a fascinating book- you go into great detail about christianity, and its branches. written with skill and care...truly a must read..
this is on my watchlist for with 6 stars******
read SEASONS...

Thanks for your kind words - Bill

this is a fascinating book- you go into great detail about christianity, and its branches. written with skill and care...truly a must read..
this is on my watchlist for with 6 stars******
read SEASONS...

Thanks to James Revoir for saying the old pitch needed to go. T. Edwards, a preacher man from Missouri, and I have been arguing over his book `Terminal Religion.' He says religion tries to separate us from Christ because religion wants to be God. I say this is crazy, nonsense, delusional. If one accepts John xiv. 23-26, one will have to live according to Christ's words. When one lives according to a set of religious rules, one has a religion. It makes no sense for Christians to say religion is a bad thing!

Wow, sorry...I couldn't disagree with you more. Bashing on the sign of the cross? Bold. Of course why wouldn't a Christian living in the first century whose knowledge of Jesus is built around personal reading without any real qualification know more about what symbol should be used for Christianity than the early church who had been there. The cross is the central image of Christianity for a reason and the reason is a good one. If you fail to understand the significance of the selection of the symbol you are going to miss the significance of what Jesus did and what that really means as well. Perhaps you should leave the biblical interpretation to biblical scholars...

Hello Bill:

This is certainly a voluminous work and doubtless is the fruit of a lifetime of labor. The pitch, however, needs a major overhaul; it seems as if you are going out of your way to discourage people from even wanting to read the work and you seem to be setting them up to be contentious before they even begin to read your work.

I am fascinated by your vast knowledge of history-especially that which has been neglected or even suppressed.

Blessings to you and may you enjoy the fruit of your labor.

James Revoir

Hi James,
Thanks for your kind words. All the best, Bill

Hello Bill:

This is certainly a voluminous work and doubtless is the fruit of a lifetime of labor. The pitch, however, needs a major overhaul; it seems as if you are going out of your way to discourage people from even wanting to read the work and you seem to be setting them up to be contentious before they even begin to read your work.

I am fascinated by your vast knowledge of history-especially that which has been neglected or even suppressed.

Blessings to you and may you enjoy the fruit of your labor.

James Revoir

this book is powerful, and well thought. i think it deserves a tighter and more concise long pitch, also broken into paragraphs. grab us, the reader. make us want to read. it is good material...
j
what every woman should know

Hello Bill,

I have read the pitch of your book and continued to read the main stuff of your ‘Constitutional History of the Western World’. I am still growing spiritually - having become a born-again Christian in March 2003 and one of the things that has helped a lot to rooted me being what you sited here saying, “… Even if one reads a good epitome of Christianity, one will always feel lost if one never actually studies all of the Bible.”.

Bravo.

JULIUS B. [Destined to Triumph]