The Nazarene Way: Biblical Ethics and Eschatology

This is the most important book you will ever read.

The goal of The Nazarene Way is to provide the reader with an analytical and comprehensive explanation of both the legalistic letter and the spiritual intent of the Christians’ scriptures in order to overcome mainstream indoctrination and replace it with a more valid interpretation of the truth. Our purpose is to take out of the religion of Christ its mystical element and explain it in the manner in which it was actually meant to be understood by its founders. The meaning of the symbols, the rites, the terms and the formulae are decoded in order to present a complete picture of what not only this religion, but in fact what every religion is and what they are for. In other words, this is a study of all things, not just the Bible or Christianity.

This book is intended primarily for Christians or those who have grown up in Western culture and who are therefore familiar with the basic principles of Christianity and open to analyzing them according to what the Bible says rather than what has been repeatedly said by lying and deceiving men. There are many things which are taken for granted here, but these are covered elsewhere, especially in The End of Learning: Logic and the Means of Knowledge, which is intended to introduce the reader to the concepts contained herein. This book takes the ethical and metaphysical arguments presented in The End of Learning and develops them in detail without needlessly retracing the steps to the beginning of those arguments.

Whereas The End of Learning was the first, or perhaps for some, the second grade of the system now being presented, this is the second or third. This book, unlike the last volume, captures the essence of the religious sentiment rather than its expression. It is not intended that the reader should require further education after this, but rather that the reader should have a point of view as enlightened as those of the ancient mystic sages after comprehending its esoteric truths. It is intended that the reader will come away with all the knowledge necessary to change his or her life for the better in every way accorded by applied spirituality. No other book in the history of man can rightfully claim to achieve the same goals with the same measure of exactitude.

Size: 1075 KB
Pages: 240 (11 notes)
Word Count: 147,856
Price: $26.95

Also included in these packages (click to open):

From the book:

The following flowchart is intended to show continuity between the basic mystic elements of each of the cultures described above. What it does not adequately show is external influences of other schools of thought, especially in the syncretic religions, or the thousands of delineated sects whose beliefs are essentially the same as their parent systems. It also does not include shamanism since it is only intended to show the evolution of belief systems; shamanism has been preserved in many of its various forms without contributing much to other cultural and religious belief systems. The reason it is included here is to show the reader which belief systems are viable alternatives to the Biblical worldview, which ones are compatible with it and which are antithetical to it.

As before, the reader is reminded that continuity between religious traditions is a spiritual affair and therefore fairly subjective, and that this chart is intended as a spiritual or interpretive guide rather than an exact categorization of subject areas. It ought to be read with the understanding that the issue of compatibility is in regard to the written doctrines of these religions only—that there may be other factors in the ways in which they are actually practiced which will make them incompatible with the Biblical worldview, such as idolatry or ancestor worship. It will be noticed that the religions which stand out as being incompatible are the Babylonian religions and each of those being promoted or espoused by the New World Order. This is not a coincidence, and this understanding will be critical to our overall theses throughout the rest of the book.

Also, as mentioned earlier, there are interpretive elements of dualism in some of the Eastern religions (particularly in the class of Mahayana Buddhism), but they are overshadowed by a higher spiritual understanding which is monistic. The reference to Aryan dualism regards the doctrine of a dual principle divinity specifically. It could be argued that Zoroastrianism and Mandaeism are fundamentally monistic as well, depending on the interpretation of their doctrines, but historically they have inclined to (and in fact, invented) the Luciferian doctrine. One could also argue that the religion of Thelema is a Satanic religion, but the fact of the matter is that it has been in existence for a long time. The Thelemic religion espoused by Aleister Crowley and other modern Satanists should be understood as Illuminism, whereas Satanism refers to Yezidism.

Every culture has its own religious traditions which, when examined closely, proves to be nothing more than a cultural adaptation of religious sentiments, usually in the place of older mythologies which get phased out when men begin to understand the inferiority of the gods they once served in comparison to the Most High, or at least the common nature which the men themselves share with those gods. On the other hand, it would be absurd to suggest that each of the thousands of religions is the same thing in a different form or that they are all equally useful or beneficial to the individual practitioner, as New Age apologists are so eager to do. The fact is that most religious belief systems contradict each other and cannot be reconciled. However, the perceived contradictions are usually only imaginary—errors resulting from a person’s attempt to create an identity by dissociation—and come about by way of an insufficient understanding of the belief system being targeted, usually, in the spirit of malice.

Although it is logically impossible for all religions to be viable alternatives to each other, it is possible that most of them have the same underlying message and that this message comes in the form of a divine imperative intended to lead us into a state of greater perfection. This inevitably means that they have God’s mandate to some extent as they have been essentially instituted by him. The only major exceptions to this rule are the Babylonian tradition of legalism (Satanism, materialism) which is Nimrod’s legacy to the world, and Luciferianism which, although grounded in Nimrod’s rebellion, is an invention of wicked antichrists such as Marcion and Mani.

If it were not for this explanation then the way of salvation would appear to not be open to all and the matter of God’s justice would be in doubt again. The question then of any religion’s viability has less to do with its message, which is generally understood innately by all people, than how it is put into practice by the society that invented it.

The ideal religion, then, is that which most successfully induces the individual to monistic faith in the benevolence of the divine plan and to a lifestyle most in accord with it. This essentially means the most ideal religion is the one which talks the most about love and has the least visible forms of expression so as to allow for hypocrisy in action. We ought to always remember that religion serves for us as a symbol of our communion with God and not the communion itself—that man walked with God before he invented ways of expressing devotion, and that to worship an image is to worship a creation—that our ultimate goal is to return to a state of perfection completely free of these forms.

The reason for the superiority of the Nazarene approach to religion lies in the fact that it is philosophical rather than rudimentary (i.e., that it relies on spiritual understanding rather than forms and functions intended to be expressions of the same spirituality). As a philosophy it is universal; as an established, legalistic sect the Satanic/Babylonian/Jewish religion is privative and devoid of value. The value of the others—the “in-betweens”—depends on their fruits.

From the book:

The Jewish conceptualization of God ultimately comes from the ancient Kenite tradition. Moses’ father-in-law Jethro was the high priest of the Midianites, who were Kenites. It is generally surmised that Jethro exerted some measure of influence over Moses and his theology, and this is a reasonable assumption, but it is unlikely that the influence was such that Moses’ conceptualization of God was anything other than Egyptian and Hebrew in nature, derived from the same esoteric traditions as those which the Nazarites of Palestine guarded. The most influence Jethro may have exerted was in the addition of his god to Moses’ inferior pantheon of pagan gods of whom worship was proscribed. This is evidenced throughout the Pentateuch, but nowhere so much as when the Israelites asked Moses for the name of the God they were to worship.

And He said, “I am the Elohim of your father, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Yitshaq, and the Elohim of Ya’aqob.” And Mosheh hid his face, for he was afraid to look at Elohim. Exodus 3:6

The next verse in this context identifies the speaker as YHWH, indicating that God has spoken through the lesser god of Israel, traditionally regarded as the archangel Michael whose name supposedly means ‘he who is like God’ or ‘who is like God?’ The place where Moses is said to have met God face to face is Mt. Horeb, which is literally read as kherub (cherub). This is where the God of the Midianites was said to have resided, and where Moses received the Law. According to Hebrew tradition Horeb was the dwelling place of the archangel Raziel, who is the equivalent of the Egyptian Djehuty/Thoth. Of course, we know that Moses’ Egyptian name was ‘drawn from Thoth,’ so this makes sense.

Since we now know that Raziel was not necessarily an individual physical entity (and since his name is not corroborated in the Bible), and that Michael is merely the patron of Israel of whom the only things that are known is that he is in charge of the angels of heaven and that his name reflects his qualities as being in conformity with YHWH’s, there is no logical reason to assert that the angels of the Christian traditions are anything other than the ‘gods’ of the pagan pantheons. From this we can deduce that the two contemporary mainstream religious traditions which are polemically opposed to the Bible (that is, Mormonism and Luciferianism) are both based on a correct interpretation of the available evidence concerning angels. In these theologies Jesus is equated with Michael, who is the brother of Lucifer, where Lucifer is personified as a material being (Satan) according to the old Christian dogma. This certainly makes sense at least, given that the archetypes of Jesus and Lucifer are both real metaphysical beings. If we do not make such a comparison then we are at a loss to account for Jesus’ existence prior to his incarnation, and this need will lead us to wrong conclusions such as the “same substance” doctrine of Athanasianism or the New Age Christ mythos adapted from the notion of the perpetual reincarnation of the Buddha (actually Mithras—the name of the New Age Christ is Maitreya, commonly taken from the canonical Buddhist scriptures.)

Every conceivable stance on the issue of Jesus’ nature has already been articulated and debated at one point or another, if only to be lost to time or crushed under the wheels of ecumenicism. It is necessary to set a historical precedent for any further investigations in order that they may be regarded as authentic interpretations of Christian teachings rather than simply new heresies. Fortunately there is, among the heresies discussed by Epiphanius and the other heresiologists, only one which appears to be a completely sound and logical belief system which is not also contradictory to scripture.

The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a mere man according to the Arian assertion, but that he was inhabited by the divine essence at his baptism. Christ is therefore God incarnate and not the same physical entity as the man Jesus, who acted as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit. The Ebionites were therefore probably the major proponents of the doctrine of semi-Arianism. Where they diverged from the Nazarenes was in their rejection of the virgin birth and of Paul’s ministry. On the one hand, the virgin birth dogma is absurd, but on the other, it is apparent that they were wrong for rejecting Paul’s doctrines concerning the Law since, as we have already shown, they are in agreement with reason. So it is not as though we are now saying that the complete theological perspective of the Ebionites was more accurate than that of the Nazarenes, but historically speaking, if it were not for these differences in doctrine we would have no basis for being able to separate them at all.

The Ebionites’ assertion that Jesus was a normal (rational, physical, natural) human being inhabited by the Holy Spirit is necessary if we are to believe the details of his ministry. There is simply no other logical explanation for why he died, if in fact he was fully God to begin with. The spirit is, after all, life; it was not until the spirit left him, apparently by his own volition, that he was even capable of dying. This has profound implications for us, not only in breaking down the barriers between the human nature of all men (including Jesus) and the divine nature, but in how that nature is manifested within us—that is, in some of us but not in others.

“He who loves his life shall lose it, and he who hates his life in this world shall preserve it for everlasting life.” John 12:25

If it was Jesus’ mission to show us the way to eternal life then this could only have been achieved by the surrender of his own. Thus his sacrifice was necessary, but not because God demanded it; rather because it was the only way for him to prove that he would live again, and consequently that we too shall live again. However, we will only benefit from the resurrection if we, like Jesus, decide that spiritual life takes precedent over the material life. This is one of the major undercurrents in Jesus’ teachings and really separates the wheat from the chaff.

From the notes:

‘Michael’ means ‘God’s Likeness’ or even ‘Who is God’ (not as an interrogative). This is clearly a reference to Yahshuah as Immanuel, who is depicted in the Bible as “the exact representation of [God’s] being” (Hebrews 1:3 NIV). Another way to read this passage esoterically would be “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory, and is Michael,” a reading which has significance because Michael is understood to be the chief messenger/archangel, and the next verse says “he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (NIV), the name obviously being Michael, since Immanuel (which means ‘God among men’) is limited to his role on earth. The obfuscation of the meaning of the name of Michael is an extreme case of Rorschach perception in epistemological theology, all the more worth mentioning because it refers to Immanuel himself as God. By drawing a distinction between Michael, the God of Israel in the Bible, and their Jesus, the Roman incarnation of Mithras, and by placing Jesus above Michael, the Christians have sealed the placement of Jesus as the Antichrist. This is essentially because Michael is a real human being, and a real character in the Bible. If he were just an invention of Jewish folklore then it would not necessarily be the case that Jesus is the Antichrist, but in order to be such he cannot be the same person as Yahshuah, and therefore must be distinguished from Immanuel/Michael as well.

Table of Contents