Correction: In speaking off the cuff, I confused the Septuagint (the Old Testament) and the Seventy (LXX), who are claimed to have been its translators, with the translators of the New Testament. But I was correct in the context of the claim, which is that there are no originals of the New Testament in Hebrew. My apologies; for those who’ve never done podcasts, they are challenging when detail and accuracy is required.
The Lord
Reverend Robert Taylor wrote (Astron. Lect. pp. 239-41.), “The greatest error ever committed in the world was the suffering the sacred scriptures to come into the hands of the common people. The greatest crime ever committed by man against the peace and happiness of society, as well as against the Holy Majesty of Heaven, was the act of translating these sacred records into the vulgar tongues of the different nations of Christendom, and thereby putting barbarian vanity and savage fanaticism into a mad conceit that they could judge as well of the nature of the ‘deep things of God,’ as his own holy priests, who, by his express appointment, were to be the ‘ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God:’ from whose oral instructions alone, the people were to receive the measure of divine truth apportioned to their capacity, and of whom God hath said, ‘The priests’ lips shall keep knowledge: the people shall hear the word of the Lord at their mouth, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.’
‘It amazes me,’ says the great critic and most learned protestant theologue, Dr. Markland, in his letter to the learned Bowyer, ‘It amazes me, when I consider what strange oversights have been made in the New Testament, by men of the greatest learning and sagacity, in a book that has been read more than any book in the world! What can be the reason of it? They would not have done so in any other author. Reverence, perhaps, has got the better of common sense. I could send you instances that would astonish you.’
Taylor continued (Ib.), “And if learned men have made such monstrous blunders, and fallen into such egregious mistakes—as they never would have fallen into in the understanding of any other book,—what must we think would be likely to be the misconceptions and misapprehensions of the unlearned and unstable, but that they should wrest the scriptures, as indeed they do, to their own destruction.
“Or where need we seek farther for the reason of all this, than that reason which the scriptures themselves assign—that, ‘Even to this day, when the scriptures are read, the veil is upon their hearts. According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this day.’
Again (Ib. p. 241.), “The shrewdest, the quickest, the cleverest, in every other respect—men who, in the reading of an ordinary lease or title-deed, or will, that might affect their claim to temporal property, would not let a word, nor a syllable, nor a dot, nor a comma, escape their criticism; who would sift and resift, weight and weigh again, every possible sense that every noun, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, conjunction, preposition, or interjection of such a document would bear,—will read their Bibles with their eyes shut.”
Again (Ib. p. 242.), “Well, then, if men may be so monstrously deceived as thus, it may be asked, how can moral certainty, or any knowledge of the past, be ensured to man? How can it be possible to arrive at any truth whatever?”
Again (Ib. p. 242-6.), “And on this principle of proving, as you would be ashamed not to apply it in the ordinary business of life, a sensible man would pause first, and insist on receiving a perfect satisfaction as to what such words as the Lord and the Apostles respectively mean, and from what sources and authorities their meaning is derived; and how it has come to pass, that in these mystical and double meaning books, called spells or charms of God, or God’s spells, these technical terms, the Lord and the Apostles, are played off upon us with such a flinging familiarity, as if it were a thing to be taken for granted that every body must know who Lords and Apostles were.
“And of this familiarity in the use of these terms, without any farther exposition of them, the resulting proof is, as that proof would be received in a court of justice with respect to the authenticity of any other writings in the world, that these writings could not possibly have been written before the notion of the Lord and the Apostles was fully made up and universally established in the world.
“Neither, then, could this gospel according to St. Luke—that is, not by St. Luke, but according to St. Luke, as God only knows who he was,—have been written as the basis of Christianity, inasmuch as there is not a single sentence in it but what supposes the whole mysterious system already full established, and entirely prevalent, before this gospel was written, even to such an universality as that its most esoteric and peculiar terms and phrases might be used without any apprehension on the part of the writer that his readers would want to know to whom they referred.
“Assume any terms of art, to be used with great familiarity in any treatise whatever, and you have, in the familiar use of those terms, a chronological demonstration, that that treatise could not have been written before the general understanding of mankind was fully possessed of the significancy of those terms, and the art to which they belonged sufficiently apprehended and understood.
“So the style of the blessed gospels throughout, in every term which they contain, involves the proof and demonstration that they were not, and absolutely could not have been written, till long, very long, many hundred, and I believe in my heart thousands of years after the general and universal prevalence of the notions which they detail.
“They are not the rule of what the faith should be, but exhibitions only of what it was: Christianity is not founded upon them, but they are founded upon Christianity: they derive their authority from the church, and not the church from them.
“Any other records whatever, which the church had adopted, would have been as sacred and as holy as these holy writings by virtue of that adoption. And I’ll answer for it, that good Christian people would have found them quite as comfortable to their souls, and as answerable to the spiritual cravings of the inner man. For, blessed be God! the spiritual appetite of our immortal souls was never very delicate in its choice of what it fed on.
“The term ‘the Lord,’ even in the plain English ear, (if that ear hold any communication with a mind within) in its most ordinary acceptation, leading the idea, as it does, to its great reference to the Lord God—the Jehovah God of the Old Testament,—must assure us that it could not have appertained to, nor be meant to designate any human being whatever.
“But the term apostles is a Greek word adopted or naturalized, without translation, into our English language; in which, unless we refer it [the word] to its derivative significancy in the language from which it has been borrowed, it has absolutely no meaning at all. The only clue afforded to the mere English reader is, that there is certainly some very particular and essential relation between the Lord and the Apostles; they are co-relative and inseparable notions. And the company always consists of thirteen: there is one Lord—and, never be it forgotten, his name One: but there are always twelve apostles, neither more nor fewer; but so necessarily and essentially twelve, that when one (as good as any of the rest of ‘em) hanged himself, another was immediately put into his place to keep up the exact number of twelve.
“The words of the original Greek text are—Και ειπον οι Αποστολοι τω Κυριω, ειπε δε Κυριος. (Kai eiton oi Apostoloi to Kurio, eipe de Kurios. He’s taking liberties of combining the first parts of verse 5 & 6, without explaining that to the reader. Those of you who do this open yourself up to unwarranted criticism by doing this, which enables perception of you to be warped.) Why, then, was not the term ο Κυριος naturalized into the Curios (see Luke 17:6), as well as the οι Αποστολοι into the apostles? It would have sounded as well in the brute ear of uninquisitive credulity.
“But the meaning of the word ο Κυριος, which we have translated the Lord, demands, and would demand, from any man who sincerely loved and sought the truth, the severest sifting and the most unflinching and uncompromising criticism of which his mind was capable. If it were possible that any man on earth could better know what that word meant, whence it was derived, and to what it tended, he would bargain with Omnipotence to forfeit his salvation. ‘Were it in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth,’ thence would he drag it forth, nor live nor die till he had known the Lord; nor would he suffer that word to be uttered in his ear, by one of woman born who knew the Lord better than himself. Ο Κυριος, in our Greek Testament, is an adjective ungrammatically used as a substantive: ο Κυριος should signify of or pertaining to that which is ο Κυριος. And Κυρος we shall find to be a God who was worshipped under that name by the ancient Persians. And that God, so worshipped under that name, Κυρος, which is the theme and root of the Greek name, ο Κυριος, which our translators have rendered the Lord, was the Sun.
‘For the Persians,’ says Plutarch, in his Artaxerxes, ‘call the Sun Κυρος.’ Κυρον γαρ καλειν Περσας τον Ηλιον. (The Persians call Helion (Helios) Kuron (Kurios). Notice how Kuron is essentially Chiron. Are you able to see the sanctum scriptum?) And Ctesias, the ancient historian of Persia, informs us that Cyrus, the Mede, who is expressly designated by Jehovah, in the 45th of Isaiah, by the titles given to Christ in the New Testament, received that name of Κυριος, (Cyrus) as derived from the name of the Sun.
“Και τιθεται το ονομα αυτω απο τω Ηλιω. (And it is named after the Sun.)
‘Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him:’ which is but a repetition of the similar idea of the 110th Psalm.
‘Yahouh said unto Adonis,’ which our translation renders, ‘the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’
In Greek, Lord is rendered Kurios, thus demonstrating the symbolic affinity of the Lord, Jove, Yahweh, Adonis, Kurios, Cyrus, Chiron, etc., being the sun, only veiled to the illiterate. The reason I spend so much energy on this is so that my audience gets motivated to learn the alphabets, and then sees it for themselves. There should be no controversy or conflict regarding this subject.
Taylor continued (Ib. pp. 246-7.), “Though we sometimes find this infinitely important word Κυρος (Kuros) written Κυρις (Kuris); but still, with reference to the Sun, the Adonis of the East, as Hesychius, the great critic of the third century, expressly states Κυρις, ο Αδωνις—that is, Κυρις is Adonis, as that Adonis was the Sun, the name Adonis being compounded of the two words Ad and On, being the title of the Supreme Being, the πρωτος των πρωτων, first of the first, or the Most High, and On, the Egyptian name of the Sun.
“Among the Eastern nations, Ad was a peculiar title, always signifying and referring to the Sun, as being pre-eminently the One, or the Alone; and this is the derivative sense of that word Holy, and of those phrases Holiness to the Lord, the (???; Taylor’s Hebrew is once again amiss; Holy would be kodesh, but I think he meant אחד, achd, or Achad, meaning unity, which I’ll demonstrate) of Hebrew, the Αγιος (Agios) of the Greek, the Sanctus of the Sabines, and ultimately the Solus or Sol of the Latins. All these words signify the Oneness or Unity of the Godhead.
“Hence the Apollo, literally signifying the one, apart and separated from the many.
“The Syrian, Chaldean, and Egyptian nations, for the greater reverence, doubled the word Ad, which was their way of forming the superlative degree, and made Adad—the One, the One. And you find that very name ascribed by the Moses of the Old Testament, and the Christ of the New, to the Supreme Jehovah, ‘Hear, O Israel, Yahouh, our Alehim, is Yahouh Achad.’ (Deut. 6:4.)
“But the Greeks and Romans, not content with doubling the word that expressed the One, from still greater reverence, tripled it, and sung to the tune—the One, the One, the One,—Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord; while by the three ones they still meant only the One One: and thus made a Trinity in Unity, and a Unity in Trinity, without intending it: both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, never having meant more than one God, and one Lord, and that Lord God was Sun.
“Thoth or Theuth, the Egyptian name for the Sun, was the root of the Greek word Θεος—God.
“And Κυρος, or Cyrus, the Persic name for the Sun, was the root of the Greek word Κυριος—the Lord.”
Again (Ib. 246-7.), “Nor is the meaning even of our English words the Lord, as the translation of the Greek ο Κυριος, so entirely disguised, but that a man who would attend to the meaning of words might find out what the deity is that is worshipped under the name the Lord, even in the Collects of our own Common Prayer Book; as in that of St. John the Evangelist—”
Become a member to access the rest of this episode and learn more.
For those unfamiliar with my work and the system I expose and teach, invest in the entire Spirit Whirled series and then The Real Universal Empire.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dylan Saccoccio's Canon to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
