The Taxil Hoax

The Taxil Hoax, The Lie That Will Not Die

Some may not have ever heard of this hoax, but believe me when I say this; most every Freemason has, since it was a hoax designed to use Freemasonry against the Catholic church, by an anti-cleric and pornographic writer, who wrote his work under the pen name of Léo Taxil. To understand this hoax, and this hoaxer, one must understand Mr. Taxil, (1)(10) himself, whose real name is Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès.


Léo Taxil during his younger years.

Taxil was born in Marseille, France, March 21, 1854, and at the age of five, he was placed into a Jesuit seminary (1). Taxil’s parents wanted him to become a priest; a member of the clergy. The church takes children young, as it is known that a child’s mind is easily molded and programmed before the age of six or seven. By this time, they have them indoctrinated, and the programming will supposedly stick with them the rest of their life. During Taxil’s stay with the strict Jesuits, though, he turned against the Catholic church, wholeheartedly. It wasn’t long after he left the seminary, that he started writing anti-clerical and anti-Catholic pamphlets, literature, and books, while claiming to be a free-thinker of the enlightenment. (2) A few of these books were titled La Bible amusante (The Amusing Bible) and La Vie de Jesus (The Life of Jesus). He was also guilty of writing pornographic literature, that portrayed the Catholic clergy in a bad light. Some titles of this nature were Les Debauches d’un confesseur (Debauchery of a confessor) with Karl Milo, Les Pornographes sacrés: la confession et les confesseurs (Sacred Pornographers: confession and confessors), Les Amours de Pie IX (The Loves of Pius IX), and Les Maîtresses du Pape (The Mistresses of the Pope). Taxil new all too well that slush and muck, (yellow journalism), sells, and that the gullible spent a lot of money on it, along with it being a way to get back at the church over his time in their school. What happened while Taxil was in the Jesuit school, is anyone’s guess, but it definitely turned him firmly against Catholicism.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, listed under the article on impostors, and within the last paragraph, they speak of Léo Taxil and his work. Yes, the church is clearly admitting to being duped by a hoaxer, and for twelve long years.

Catholic Encyclopedia about Léo Taxil:

Of a different type is the most notorious imposture of modern times, that of “Léo Taxil” and “Diana. Vaughan”. Léo Taxil, whose true name was G. Jogand-Pagès, had long been known as one of the most blasphemous and obscene of the anti-clerical writers in France. He had been repeatedly sentenced to fines and imprisonment for the filthy and libellous works he published. For example, on account of his atrocious book Les Amours de Pie IX” [The Loves of Pius IX] he was sentenced to pay 60,000 francs at the suit of the pope’s nephew. He had also founded the “Anti-Clerical”, a journal which fanatically attacked all revelation and religion. In 1885 it was announced that Léo Taxil had been converted, and he soon proceeded to publish a series of pretended exposures of the practices of Freemasonry, and particularly of the “Satanisme” or Devil-worship with which he declared it was intimately bound up. Amongst other attractions he introduced a certain “Diana Vaughan”, the heroine of “Palladism”, who was destined to be the spouse of the demon Asmodeus, but clung to virtue, and was constantly visited by angels and devils. Various other writers, Bataille, Margiotta, Hacks, etc., exploited the same ideas and became in a measure Taxil’s confederates. In 1896-1897 the imposture was finally shown up and Taxil cynically admitted that Diana Vaughan was only the name of his typist. [See Portalié, “La Fin d’une mystification”, Paris, 1897, and H. Gruber (H. Gerber), “Léo Taxils Palladismus Roman”, and other works, 1897-8.[sic]

Quoting, Kembrew McLeod, from his book, Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World, chap. 4, page 109 and 111. (9):

Between 1885 and 1897, the self-proclaimed “greatest joker of all times” transfixed the public with lurid revelations about Freemason black masses, orgies, and good ole Satan worship. Born in 1854 to a devoutly religious French family, the rebellious Jogand-Pagès developed a reputation as a prankster throughout his troubled Catholic education. In 1880, he broke off ties with his family, changed his name to Léo Taxil, and gleefully entered into a career of “poison-pen, yellow journalism.” He edited such journals as the Mudslinger and authored a popular sacrilegious text, The Amusing Bible for Grown-Ups and Children. Taxil also published outrageous political tracts such as Down with the Cloth! and wrote several pornographic novels (The Pope’s Mistress and The Debauches of a Confessor, to name a couple). He faced many duels, mostly over defamation, and by 1876 he had been put on trial thirteen times. But business was good. Down with the Cloth!—which labeled Pope Pius IX a “debaucher, forger, adulterer, and assassin”—sold 130,000 copies. The profits were more than enough to make up for the court-ordered damages”. [sic]


After Charles Hacks / Dr. Bataille confessed that his book was a lie, doubts about Vaughan’s existence intensified. (Hacks made it clear why he wrote The Devil in the Nineteenth Century: there was money to be made on the “known credulity and unknown idiocy of the Catholics.”) Taxil finally called a press conference at the Geographical Society in Paris, where he promised that Vaughan would at last make her public debut. After twelve eventful years, the prankster came clean. “My Reverend Fathers, Ladies, Gentlemen,” Taxil told the assembled priests and journalists. “First of all, it is appropriate to convey some thanks to those of my colleagues of the Catholic Press. . . . Do not get angry, my Reverend Fathers, but do laugh heartily when you are told now that what did happen is the very opposite of what you expected.” Taxil chose to begin and end his “funny as well as instructive hoax” in “April, the month of gaiety, the month of pranks.” [sic]

Even US News and World Report published an article about the Palladian lie, (11) and below, I quote it.

Taxil fabricated an entire cast of far-flung Masons. His most popular creation was Diana Vaughan, a member of a fictitious group of American Freemasons called the Palladian Order, whose inner workings she described in her autobiography. “Her Luciferian origin and principles,” Taxil wrote, “were shown . . . by the devils who attended her and through whose aid she made excursions to Mars.” Such accusations were eagerly imbibed by a public wary of the secretive and politically progressive Masons. [sic]

Taxil’s work informs today’s extremist Christian literature as well. Chick Publications, which distributes Christian tracts, offers a short comic strip that calls Masonry witchcraft and fezzes (worn by the Shriners, a subset of Masonry) “idols dedicated to a false god.” It even refers to Albert Pike, a real South Carolina Mason who was caricatured into a Satanist by Taxil. In his 1991 bestseller New World Order, evangelist Pat Robertson implicated Freemason “occultism” in a supposed international financial conspiracy. And a Mississippi group called Ex-Masons for Jesus brands the order a “pagan religion.” [sic]

Taxil himself had no intention of aiding any Christian cause: He wanted to embarrass Rome. After promising to present Diana Vaughan to the public in April 1897, he instead used the occasion to reveal himself as a fake and to thank the church for its gullibility. “Palladism, my most beautiful creation, never existed except on paper and in thousands of minds,” he told a crowd of 300. They were incensed, but Taxil had once more outwitted his audience: He had requested that all umbrellas and canes be checked at the door. [sic]




A sample of Léo Taxil’s anti-clerical and pornographic books are shown above. The fifth book: Le Diable au XIXe Siècle; ou, Les Mystères du Spiritisme, la Franc-Maçonnerie Luciférienne, (The Devil in the Nineteenth Century; or, The Mysteries of spiritualism, French-Freemasonry Luciferian), is the book which contained the entire hoax, and is shown above in a black and white cover.

As can be seen, from the Catholic Encyclopedia quotation above, Léo Taxil next started a magazine, named the ‘Anti-Clerical’, that he worked at until April 1885. According to his confession, in April 1897, he stated that he had told a partner, within this magazine, to not think that he was quitting nor a traitor, or actually being converted to Catholicism, but to the contrary, and that he would understand later. (3)

Taxil to his partner:

 You have the right to say that I am a renegade, since I just published, four days ago, a letter in which I expressly retracted and disowned all my writings against religion. But I beg you to cross out the word traitor which in no ways applies to my case; there is not the shadow of treason in what I do today. What I tell you here, you cannot understand at the present moment; but you shall understand it later. (3) [sic]

Taxil had also told a friend of his, Stefano Canzio-Garibaldi, Giuseppe Garibaldi’s son-in-law, a similar thing. Giuseppe Garibaldi was an Italian general, politician, and nationalist who played a large role in the history of Italy.

My dear Canzio, I have to tell you, under the seal of secrecy, that in a short while, I shall make a complete and public break. Be surprised at nothing, and keep your trust in me in your heart. (3) [sic]

Thus, it was in 1885, that Taxil started working on the hoax, against the Catholic church, that would last twelve long years, and he was going to use Freemasonry to do it. Here, Taxil claimed that he had been converted, and sought out a priest, who he had been studying for sometime, to make some of the most sinful confessions to, and one was a murder, of which he never committed. Taxil said of the priest at the Clamart commune: “He turned out to be a former military chaplain who became a Jesuit, a sly one among the sly! His appreciation was to be weighty” (3). Taxil had studied the murders and ‘disappearances’ that had happened for the three years before, and told the priest that he was responsible for one of them. The priest thought he was sincere over this, and announced to the entire church, that Léo Taxil had been converted to Catholicism, and had changed his ways. The priest would only vouch for Taxil, and never repeated his confession.

Taxil on the imaginary murder, from his 1897 confession. (3):

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want to keep you waiting as long as he had to: my big sin was a murder, a first-class murder, one of the best downright assassinations. No, I had not slaughtered an entire family, but without being a Tropmann or a Dumolard (8). I was good for the guillotine, no doubt, had I been found out.

I had taken care to investigate a few disappearances reported three years before by newspapers, and had imagined a little fairy-tale based upon one of them. But my reverend father didn’t let me tell it all in details. He thought me capable of the most dreadful sacrileges, and found grounds to be pleasantly surprised. He did not however expect an assassin at his knees.

(New laughter)

When the first words of admission fell from my lips, the reverend father jumped backwards in a most significant way. Ah! Now he understood, my embarrassment, my difficulties, my way of discussing certain sins of less significance at such length… And how ashamed I was when I confessed my crime!… Not only ashamed, but disconcerted, frightened… A widow was part of the story, the reverend father let me promise that, in an indirect and indeed most ingenious way, I would bestow a rent on my victim’s widow…. He did not want to hear any name, but what he was interested in was to know whether I had murdered with or without premeditation. After beating around the bush and falling under the weight of shame, I admitted premeditation, a true ambush. [sic]

Pope Leo XIII, aka Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, unknowingly, had helped to set up the entire prank, the year before, when he wrote the encyclical, Humanum Genus, on April 20th, 1884, which was a right nasty piece of work about Freemasonry, and everyone else who wasn’t a Catholic. It was a reactionary encyclical, written by the Pope, principally condemning Freemasonry by stating that the late 19th Century was dangerous for the church, due to the concepts and practices of Freemasonry, such as naturalism or natural law (essentially equal rights), popular sovereignty (government elected by the people, and thus, it was also against the divine right of kings, which the church had appointed) and the separation of church and state (where the church was denied any authority over the state, government, and its law). (4) In this encyclical, the Pope wrote that there were only two groups of people; those who were in his church to serve God, and everyone else, who were the kingdom of Satan. Naturally, this not only upset the Freemasons, but it did every Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and every other person, religious or not, in the world. The Popes bigotry and prejudice was showing itself, brightly, to everyone. Also, the leaders of France and the surrounding European countries were none too pleased with what the Pope proclaimed. Many were even furious with the Pope in the United States and elsewhere. Léo Taxil was going to use this to his advantage, and expose the church for what it was, at the time.

Some quotes from the Humanum Genus. My comments and corrections are [bracketed]. (5):

  • “They deny that anything has been revealed by God …” [That is a lie.]
  • “They preach and maintain the full separation of [the] Church from the State. So law and government are wrested from the wholesome and divine virtue of the Catholic Church”. [Another lie, as nothing is preached in Freemasonry. The Freemasons supporting the separation is true.]
  • “In the instruction and education of children, they do not leave to the ministers of the Church any part …” [Not in public schools, no.]
  • “They teach, that men have all the same rights”. [Oh, you mean we don’t? So, you and your monarchs are better than the rest of us?]
  • “By opening their gates to persons of every creed they promote… religious indifference, the best way to annihilate every religion. The Catholic religion, being the only true one, cannot be joined with others without enormous injustice”. [Does it now? Why not admit that the Catholic church promotes hate, prejudice, bigotry, segregation, and separation?]
  • “Naturalists and Freemasons deny original sin and do not acknowledge that our free will is bent to evil”. [Another lie, Freemasonry states none of the such. However, I do not personally believe in the rubbish of original sin, as if a child is born sinful. This lie did not come from the Pharisees, but from the early Greco-Roman Hellenists in the Catholic church.]
  • “They leave to the members full liberty of thinking about God – whatever they like”. [Yes, that we do. We are a secular fraternity after all.]
  • “[They believe that] those who rule [the people] have no authority, but by… the wishes of the people.” [Oh yes, I totally agree with that one.]
  • “Separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ… The other is the kingdom of Satan”. [Yes, that is what this bigoted Pope, Leo XIII, actually wrote. All Protestants, or any other religion, are damned, according to him.]

The encyclical then proceeds to instruct the clergy to wage war against Freemasonry through pastoral letters, sermons, through formation of a similar Catholic fraternity, (the Knights of Columbus), and in the education of children, by brainwashing, such as the Jesuit schools. (5)

There is a good academic paper about the Humanum Genus, originally written for the course Communication and Rhetorical Theories, University of New York in Prague, Communications and Mass Media major, Fall 2005, By Ondřej Šmejkal:

[page] 5

There is one problem though: the evidence [of the Pope] is in fact no evidence at all. All those examples of the Masonic “mischief” are just claims. There is no evidence whatsoever as to where these claims came from. Did the Pope study the Masonic doctrine? Or perhaps, did He spoke with someone who did? Or did He perhaps read their pamphlets? All those questions remain unanswered, and yet despite the lack of support, the reader trusts in what is said. In any other circumstances, getting this kind of acceptance from the reader would be a serious  problem, but in case of Papal documents, there is none. The Pope has the luxury we can only dream of – the Papal infallibility – which is essentially a thesis that the Pope can never be wrong whatsoever (“Infallibility”). This immunity to error is the guarantee that whatever the Pope says will be taken as the truth and will not be questioned. Therefore, the Pope does not need to back up His evidence. It is His authority, His ethos that does the trick.

[page 6]

The Pope also uses figurative language to a great extent, both to label the opponent as well as to describe the entire situation. Hence, from the very beginning, in Section 2 of Humanum Genus, the Pope metaphorically calls the Freemasons “partisans of evil” (24), later on “fatal plague” (ibid, Section 8, 97), or “evil sect, in which is revived the contumacious spirit of the demon” (ibid, Section 37, 521-2). Furthermore, He uses analogy to link the Freemasons to the medieval heretical sects:

Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members (ibid, Section 9, 113-5).

As to the overall situation, the Holy Father metaphorically divides mankind into the “kingdom of God on Earth” and “the kingdom of Satan” (ibid, Section 1, 9-17). By using personification, He creates a notion of a struggle not jus[t] between individuals, but rather between two major institutions. Thus, as:

[…] the sect of Freemasons grew with a rapidity beyond conception in the course of a century and a half, until it came to be able, by means of fraud or audacity, to gain such entrance into every rank of the State as to seem to be almost its ruling power, […] this apostolic see denounced the sect of the Freemasons, and publicly declared its constitution, as contrary to law and right […] (ibid, Section 7, 74-7 & Section 6, 54-5). [sic]

One can see from the above, well written and peer reviewed paper, that the Pope’s deplorable actions are even evident to the European students of today. Šmejkal clearly sees the truth, as do I. I clearly see, that when Léo Taxil was accused of slander and libel, he was taken to court. However, the Pope thought that he could say anything he well pleased, lie or not, and that by him saying so, a lie was true, because he thought himself infallible, and so did the church. Now, one doesn’t have to wonder, much, about why Taxil went after the Pope and the church at this time. It was simply vengeance, over what they did to him, about his free-thinking and writing. Did you ever wonder why the United States Bill of Rights has the 1st Amendment?

What one must also understand, here, is that the French Freemasons of that time were not regular Freemasons, as they were under the Grand Orient de France, which had its warrant (charter) revoked in 1877, by the United Grand Lodge of England, after the Grand Orient admitted atheists into membership. After this time, the Grand Orient had became involved in politics, which is against the United Grand Lodge of England’s, (the mother and Premiere Grand Lodge), 1723 constitution, along with the Old Charges that it was written from. The British and the other European Grand Lodges, nor the United States Grand Lodges, had anything to do with this irregular practice, which was coming from a now clandestine Grand Lodge. However, that did not stop Pope Leo XIII, who had became Pope one year after the Grand Orient had became irregular, in 1878, from claiming that all Lodges were the same, (as regular Freemasons, everywhere, had already proclaimed their backing for the reformation, peoples natural rights, democracy, and liberty since its founding, in 1717), nor did it stop Taxil, who had not yet petitioned Freemasonry, for claiming so, and using it to his advantage.

Taxil went on, in his April 1897 confession, to speak of the Pope and his issuing of the Humanum Genus. (3):

One year earlier, the Sovereign Pontiff had made himself notorious with the encyclical Humanum Genus, and this encyclical agreed with a well-established idea of the militant Catholics. Gambetta had said, “Clericalism, there is the enemy!” The Church, on the other side, said, “The enemy is Freemasonry!”

Accordingly, slandering Freemasons was the best way to establish the foundations of the colossal prank of which I savored all the suave happiness in advance.

At first, Freemasons were indignant; they did not foresee that the patiently prepared conclusion of the hoax would result in a worldwide outburst of laughter. They actually thought I had joined for good. It was said and repeated that it was a way of avenging myself for having been expelled from my Lodge in 1881, a well-known story which was not in the least dishonorable for me, but the mere consequence of a little row initiated by two men having nowadays disappeared, and disappeared under sad circumstances.

Taxil had indeed joined a Lodge of irregular Freemasonry, in 1881, which was Le Temple de L’Honneur français (The Temple of French Honor), in Paris, and under the Grand Orient, (the Lodge and membership of which the anti-Masons claim that Freemasonry doesn’t reveal). However, according to Lodge records, he was expelled over his views and his like for trouble making; in particular a fight, while only an Entered Apprentice. To claim that he was a full Mason, and knew more than an Entered Apprentice, is a fallacy. In Taxil’s confession of 1897, he alludes to joining in order to allegedly help with the hoax, and seems to claim that he purposely started a fight to get expelled. The Lodge records state differently. Many think that he wanted revenge for this, and Léo Taxil was not above revenge, as he had already created two large hoaxes, one at Marseille, which was a wild claim about a large number of vicious sharks swimming the coast, and one at Lake Geneva, where Taxil had people, even well known archaeologists, searching the bottom of the lake for a sunken ancient city, which did not exist. Both times, they were over Taxil feeling slighted by someone.

Next, Taxil started to plot, and he invented what became known as the Palladian, a fake Masonic order, supposedly a part of the Scottish Rite, that none other than Albert Pike had allegedly started in the US. However, Pike was up in age, and not able to defend nor refute anything that Taxil later dreamed up, especially after Pike died on April 2, 1891. Taxil grabbed onto one word that Pike had written in his book, Morals and Dogma, where he called the word lucifer, a “he” instead of an it, though Pike was correct in the rest about the Apocalypse and what lucifer means. Pike had questioned why the word, lucifer, was used to describe the spirit of darkness, when it was Latin for Light Bearer, Morning Star, and Son of the Morning, which is the planet Venus.

The first anti-Masonic books that Taxil published, revealed things such as the rituals held by the French Freemasons, and he also started to insinuate things, such as The Great Architect of the Universe was used as a secret name for satan instead of God, in his books. In 1892, Taxil also started publishing a paper, La France chrétienne anti-maçonnique (Christian Antimasonic France), with his staunch anti-Masonic publishing friend, Abel Clarin de la Rive, who worked under Taxil, since Taxil was the manager. Taxil goes on to say how he came up with the idea for this, below:

Let us leave this aside and summarize facts. Since my goal was to invent all the elements of contemporary devilry—which was a good bit stronger than the city under the Lake of Geneva—it was necessary to proceed step by step, foundations had to be set, the egg from which Palladism was to be born had to be laid and incubated. A prank of this size cannot be created in one day.

(A voice: Obviously!)

From the first moment of my conversion, I had found out that a certain number of Catholics strongly believed that the name “Grand Architect of the Universe,” adopted by Freemasonry to designate the Supreme Being without relating it to the particular way of any specific religion, that this name, as I say, is used in fact to skillfully conceal Master Lucifer or Satan, the devil! [sic]


Stories are told here and there in which the devil suddenly appeared in a Masonic Lodge and presided over the meeting. This is admitted among Catholics. [sic]


Accordingly, my first books on Freemasonry consisted in a mixture of rituals, with short innocent parts inserted, apparently harmlessly interpreted. Each time an obscure passage occurred, I explained it in a way agreeable to Catholics who see Master Lucifer as the supreme grand-master of Freemasons. But only with a touch of suggestion. I was slowly smoothing the field first, in order to plough it later on, and then scatter the mystifying seeds which were to sprout so well. [sic]

After two years of this writing, Taxil went to Rome, where he was received well by Cardinals Rampolia and Parocchi. Again, Taxil reveals more of what happened while there, in his 1897 confession:

Cardinal Rampolia called me “my dear,” thick as thieves. And how much he regretted that I had been only a mere Apprentice in Masonry! But since I succeeded in getting at the rituals, nothing was more legitimate than printing them. He said he could identify therein all his previous readings from documents in the Holy See’s possessions. He identified everything, even that which, by my doings, had the same worth as the sharks of Marseilles or the city under the Lake of Geneva.

(A voice: Rascal! Scoundrel! Blackguard! Rogue!)

As for Cardinal Parocchi, what interested him most, was the question of Masonic Sisters. My precious revelations had taught him nothing new either.

(Murmurs on one side; laughter on the other.)

I had come to Rome unexpected, unaware of the fact that a request for a private audience with the Sovereign Pontiff must be made a long time in advance, but I had the pleasant surprise of not waiting at all, and the Holy Father received me for three quarters of an hour.

(A voice: You are a ruffian.) [sic]

Here, Taxil states that he was also, indeed, received by the Pope, who had told him that he had all of his books. It seems that the Pope was willing to use any muck and slush as proof about Freemasonry, which Taxil’s writing fit to a tee. It is also revealed that Cardinal Parocchi was interested in Masonic sisters, which there are none in the fraternity of regular Freemasonry. A fraternity is for men, (frater meaning brother), and a sorority is for women. Below, Taxil reveals it all from the same 1897 confession (3):

Smiling, Léo XIII deigned to tell me that my life was still very useful in the fight for faith. Then he touched upon the question of Freemasonry. He owned all my new works in his personal library. He had read them from one end to the other and insisted upon the satanic guidance of the sect.

Having been an Apprentice only, I had great merit to have understood that “the devil is there.” And the Sovereign Pontiff stressed on the word devil with an inflection which is easy for me to render. It seems that I can still hear him repeating: “The devil! The devil!”

When I left, I was sure that my plan could be carried out to the end. The important thing was not to stand out any more, once the fruit was ripe.

Now, the tree of contemporary luciferianism began to grow. I gave it all my care for a few more years… Then I re-wrote one of my books, introducing a palladian ritual in it, allegedly obtained in communication, in fact prettily fabricated by me from beginning to end. [sic]


Now, Palladism or Luciferian High-Masonry was born. The new book had the most enthusiastic reception, including all the magazines issued by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus. [sic]

The book in mention, Le Diable au XIXe siècle, (Devil in the Nineteenth Century), published in 1892, about the Palladian, was written after Pike had died in 1891, where he could not defend himself. Albert Pike had become instrumental in Taxil’s plans, and in them, he invented a new title for Pike, that of the Pope of Luciferianism within Freemasonry. The book was supposedly written by Dr. Bataille, but in fact, it was Taxil, himself, with the help of a friend who was supposedly a physician: “an old college friend of mine, who had been a doctor aboard ships” (3), who supposedly was named Charles Hacks. However, Dr. Bataille was supposedly the physicians pseudonym for the work he did.

Next, Taxil created a woman named Sophia Walder, but only called her Sophia-Sapho in the book, Are There any Women in Freemasonry. She became the ‘Grand Mistress of Palladism’. After getting his physician friend on board with the hoax, Taxil admitted: “Sophie Walder, a myth! Palladism, my most beautiful creation, only existed on paper and in a few thousand brains! He could not believe it. I had to show him some proof.  Once convinced, he found the hoax even funnier and kept on working with me.” (3)

Taxil also invented a heroine by the name of Mrs. Diana Vaughan, who was supposedly a descendant of the Rosicrucian alchemist, Thomas Vaughan, to take Sophia Walder out of the spotlight, and to be her adversary. Mrs. Vaughan supposedly wrote, Confessions of an Ex-Palladist, in 1895, which was again written by Taxil. In reality, Vaughan was a typewriter saleswoman, from the US, who had agreed to help Taxil with his hoax, and for a price, to do his typing for him and pen any letters needed in a woman’s hand. After all, since the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite’s southern jurisdiction, who was also a licensed attorney, was no longer alive, then Taxil thought that he had nothing to worry about. However, this thinking is what led to the hoax unraveling about the seams later on. Below, is what Taxil had to say about his typist, the soon to be heroine, Diana Vaughan (3):

A little while before meeting again with my childhood friend, the doctor, the necessities of my profession let me meet a typist who was a European representative of one of the large typewriter manufacturers in the United States. At that time, I gave her lots of manuscripts to type. I met with a woman who was intelligent, active, sometimes traveling for business. Further gifted with a playful humor and an elegant simplicity, as in most of our Protestant families. One knows that Lutheran and Calvinist women, although proscribing luxury in the way they dress, nevertheless make concessions to fashion. Her family was French, father and mother French but deceased, the American origin went back to her great-grandfather only. [sic]


I could not ask her point-blank. I studied her first. Little by little, I interested her in devilry, which greatly amused her. She is, as I said, rather a free-thinker than a Protestant. Consequently, she was amazed to find out that in this century of progress, there are still people who believe seriously in all the nonsense of the Middle Ages.[sic]


Finally, I convinced Miss Vaughan to become my accomplice for the final success of my hoax. I drew a fixed agreement with her: 150 francs per month for typing manuscripts as well as for letters which should be copied by hand. It goes without saying that should trips be necessary, all her expenses would be defrayed; but, she never accepted any money as a gift. In fact, she enjoyed the prank quite a lot and took a liking to it. Corresponding with Bishops, Cardinals, receiving letters from the private secretary of the Sovereign Pontiff, telling them fairy tales, informing the Vatican about the dark plots of luciferians, all this set her in an inexpressible gaiety, she thanked me for associating her with this huge prank. [sic]


The Devil in the 19th Century was mainly written to introduce the existence of Miss Vaughan who was to play the main part in the hoax. Had her name been Campbell or Thompson, we would have given our sympathetic luciferian the name of Miss Campbell or Miss Thompson. We merely turned her into an American, born by chance in Paris. We let her family originate in Kentucky. This allowed us to make her part as interesting as possible by multiplying extraordinary wonders concerning her, which nobody was able to check. (Laughter) Another reason was that we located the center of Palladism at Charleston in the United States, with the late General Albert Pike, Grand Master of the Scottish Rite in South Carolina, as Founder. This celebrated Freemason, endowed with vast erudition, had been one of the highlights of the order. Through us, he became the first luciferian Pope, supreme chief of all freemasons of the globe, conferring regularly each Friday, at 3 p.m., with Master Lucifer in person. [sic]

and last,

We saw indeed some Masonic journals, such as La Renaissance Symbolique, swallow a dogmatic circular about luciferian occultism, a circular dated July 14, 1889, written by myself in Paris, and which I disclosed as having been brought from Charleston to Europe by Miss Diana Vaughan on behalf of Albert Pike, its author.

When I named Adriano Lemmi second successor to Albert Pike as luciferian Sovereign Pontiff—then Lemmi was not elected pope of the Freemasons in the Borghese palace, but in my office—, when this imaginary election became known, some Italian Masons, among which a Deputy at the Parliament, took it seriously. They were annoyed to learn through indiscretions of the profane press that Lemmi was secretive toward them, that he kept them aloof from the famous Palladism which the whole world spoke about. They met in Congress in Palermo, constituted in Sicily, Naples and Florence, three independent Supreme Councils, and named Miss Vaughan an honorary member and protectress of their federation. [sic]

You’ll notice from the above quotes, that Taxil said that he watched “La Renaissance Symbolique, swallow a dogmatic circular about luciferian occultism; a circular dated July 14, 1889“. That is the same circular or encyclical which Taxil showed to Abel Clarin de la Rive, and is responsible for the three famous paragraphs published in de la Rive’s book, La Femme et L’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, (Woman and child in Universal Freemasonry), of 1894, which was written about Albert Pike, and which there was no truth to whatsoever. Abel Clarin de la Rive recanted his writing, after Taxil admitted to the hoax in April 1897. Below are the three paragraphs in mention, which includes the footnote on the page, citing AC de la Rive’s source, at page 589:

That which we must say to the world is that we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the Purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him?

Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods; darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive….

Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. [sic]


*It was the Sister Diana Vaughan that Albert Pike,–in order to give her the greatest mark of confidence,–charged to carry his luciferian encyclical, to Paris, during the Universal Exposition [Exposition Universelle 1889]. [sic]

To the above, (which is quoted as proof by the ignorant anti-Masons), Abel Clarin de la Rive recanted what he wrote about Albert Pike and Freemasonry, in a magazine that he published, titled: Freemasonry Revealed, in the April 1897 issue, after he had taken over as the manager at the the magazine, in 1896, when Taxil left that position. (6) Abel Clarin de la Rive, then, changed the name of the magazine’s company to The Antimasonic France. The below is quoted from AC de la Rive, where he recants his part in this hoax, in his April 1897 magazine, just after Taxil confessed before the clergy and the press at his Paris conference. Abel Clarin de la Rive will not give Taxil any advertisement by mentioning him by name, so it is added in brackets.

With frightening cynicism, the miserable person we shall not name here, [Taxil], declared before an assembly, especially convened for him, that for twelve years, he had prepared and carried out to the end, the most extraordinary and most sacrilegious of hoaxes. We have always been careful to publish special articles concerning Palladism and Diana Vaughan. We are now giving, in this issue, a complete list of these articles, which can now be considered as not having existed. [sic]

de la Rive 1894 cover, sharpened

AC de la Rive’s book, La Femme et L’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, (Woman and child in Universal Freemasonry), of 1894, which contained the fake Albert Pike Encyclical.

After this recant, The Antimasonic France took a nosedive for which it never came out of, and completely disappeared after AC de la Rive’s death in 1914. Taxil recalls what he thought of Abel Clarin de la Rive:

Can one believe, for instance, that it was easy to take Mr. de la Rive for a ride, he, the embodiment of an inquiring mind, who examines the slightest trifles with a microscope and who could beat our best investigating judges? He can boast of having given me trouble! (3)

Now, we continue on with more of Taxil’s long-winded confession of 1897, though it is rightly hilarious:

When I named Adriano Lemmi second successor to Albert Pike as luciferian Sovereign Pontiff—then Lemmi was not elected pope of the Freemasons in the Borghese palace, but in my office—, when this imaginary election became known, some Italian Masons, among which a Deputy at the Parliament, took it seriously. They were annoyed to learn through indiscretions of the profane press that Lemmi was secretive toward them, that he kept them aloof from the famous Palladism which the whole world spoke about. They met in Congress in Palermo, constituted in Sicily, Naples and Florence, three independent Supreme Councils, and named Miss Vaughan an honorary member and protectress of their federation.

A voice.—That was a successful prank!

Another listener.—These freemasons were your accomplices!

M. LÉO TAXIL —You bet!… May I say again that I had only two auxiliaries who were in the secret of the prank: my doctor friend and Miss Diana Vaughan.

An unexpected auxiliary—though by no means an accomplice, in spite of what he said—is Mr. Margiotta, a Freemason from Palmi, in Calabria. He began as one of the hoaxed, became more hoaxed than all the others and, what is most amusing, he told us he had met the Palladist grand-mistress during one of her trips to Italy. (Laughter) It is true that I had gently induced him to entrust me with this confidence. I had put in his head that the trip had really taken place; I had created around it an atmosphere of Palladism; I let him meet a chamberlain of Léo XIII in Rome who had dined with Miss Diana some times before. (Loud laughter and protests) Then I mentioned that during Miss Vaughan’s imagined trip of 1889, when she was supposed to have brought the alleged dogmatic Albert Pike’s circular letter to Europe, she had entertained many Freemasons in groups, in the course of two evenings in Naples, at Hotel Victoria. I knew that Mr. Margiotta, who is a poet, had dedicated a volume of verse to Bovio, and I had taken the trouble to tell him that the Freemasons were introduced to Miss Vaughan in 1889 by Bovio and by Cosma Panunzi. I added that these brothers had taken tea with her but were so many that she couldn’t remember their names or faces. Timidly at first, Mr. Margiotta risked some allusions about this former meeting. Then, seeing that it seemed to work and that Miss Diana did not contradict him, he went all the way. He went indeed much too far. —Later, when I decided to prevent the mystification from collapsing under the silence of a Commission, our prank having been unmasked in the mean time in Germany, when I agreed with the doctor to tally-ho the panic of the mystified Cardinals, when Bataille and I, always in agreement, faked shooting at each other, Mr. Margiotta, having at last opened his eyes, feared ridicule and chose to declare himself an accomplice rather than a blind volunteer in our navy.

But we shouldn’t appear more numerous than we actually were. We were three and that was enough. The editors themselves were mystified all the way. Anyway, they have nothing to complain about. First of all because our marvelous revelations brought them the most encouraging Episcopal congratulations, not counting those of the grave theologians who didn’t bat an eyelid when our crocodile played the piano and Miss Vaughan traveled to various planets. Then, because our triple collaboration let them give two works to the public, which can compete with A Thousand and One Nights, works which have been devoured with delight and will still be read for a long time, not with conviction any more, possibly, but out of curiosity. [sic]


The impossibility of Palladism becomes plain as the nose on one’s face only because of the supernatural elements we filled it with. But these devilries were a warning only for those who do not believe in those devilries described in other books, in pious books. Asmodeus carrying Miss Diana Vaughan to the Garden of Eden is no more extraordinary than Master Satan taking up Jesus Christ himself on top of a mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the Earth … which is round!

(Various voices: Bravo!)

Either one has faith or one has not.

(Laughter) [sic]


Besides this first category of hoaxed people, however, there is a second one, and members of the latter one were not fully hoaxed. The good abbots and monks who admired Miss Vaughan because she was a converted Masonic luciferian Sister have the right to think that such female Masons exist. They have never seen or encountered any, but they may think that it is because there are none in their diocese. In Rome, it’s another story. In Rome, all information is centralized. In Rome one cannot ignore that there are no female Masons other than the wives, daughters, or sisters of Freemasons, admitted to banquets, public feasts, or those who meet separately, very decently, in private societies comprising feminine elements only such as the Sisters of the Eastern Star or the Daughters of the Revolution in the United States.

(Signs of approval)

When one thinks about it, it is easy to understand that if Masonic sisters exist, such as the anti-Masons imagine, there would have been conversions and confessions a long time ago! The eagerness with which Miss Vaughan’s alleged conversion was received in Rome is significant. Please notice that Msgr. Lazzareschi, delegate of the Holy See to the Anti-Masonic Union’s central Committee, let a Thanksgiving Triduum be celebrated at the Church of the Sacred Heart in Rome!

The Hymn to Joan of Arc supposedly composed by Miss Diana, words and music, was performed at the anti-Masonic feasts of the Roman Committee. This music became nearly sacred and sounded with grand solemnity in the basilicas of the Holy City. Its tune is that of the Philharmonic Syringe, a musical jest written for the entertainments of the harem by one of my friends, conductor of the orchestra of Sultan Abdul Aziz.

(Prolonged laughter. Cries: It is abominable! Oh! The blackguard!) [sic]

It is indeed hilarious, that those who still parrot this hoax, for all its worth, (whom are the conspiracy theorists or the uneducated and ignorant religious clergy), must be stating that they believe in this hoax, and by that, they are agreeing that they believe in the Taxil tale that states that a devil snake wrote prophecies on Diana Vaughan’s back, with the tip of its tail, and another devil, in order to marry a female Mason, (when there aren’t any women in regular Freemasonry), changed itself into a crocodile and played the piano well, along with Taxil’s yarn of our heroine, Diana Vaughan, traveling about to different planets in 1896. Then, there is the one about the king of the demons, Asmodeus, carrying Miss Diana Vaughan off to the Garden of Eden, and that she was supposed to be wed to this demon, yet, these buffoons must believe every word of it, since they quote the very texts that this is in! You can not pick and choose of what Taxil wrote to believe in. Taxil laughs about this, during his second confession in National Magazine a year before he died, in May 1906. That will be quoted at the end of this article.

Those who parrot Taxil’s slush will never reveal any of this to you, as they are either ignorant of it, or they actually know of it, and are willingly lying about it, in order to sell pamphlets, comics, books, DVDs, and to make money from conspiracy theory lectures. The more modern names of those who have quoted Taxil as fact, are Dr. James L Holly, Eustace Mullins, Bill Schnoebelen, Harmon R. Taylor, Martin Short, Jack Harris, Gary H. Kah, John Ankerberg, Pat Robertson, Larry Kunk et al, David Carrico, Dan Harting, J. Edward Decker, Jr., Cathy Bums, Jack Chick, David Icke, Alex Jones, Texe Marrs, John Todd (and his aliases), Milton William ‘Bill’ Cooper, and Kevin McNeil-Smith of Freemasonrywatch, along with many others that come to mind. Not in the least of whom are those that they copied their fallacies from, such as Edith Starr Miller, (Lady Queenborough), a vocal anti-Semite and bigot, who published portions of AC de la Rives work, swearing it all to be true, when it was all Léo Taxil’s writing. Next, there was the publishing of the fake Three World Wars letter, supposedly penned by Albert Pike to Giuseppe Mazzini, but in reality, it was written by its fraudulent and bigoted inventor, William Guy Carr, another bigoted anti-Semite and anti-Mason. After Carr was caught in the act, by actual scholars, falsifying this document, his publishing career was ended. These last two are both true charlatans, liars, and anti-Semitic bigots of the worst kind. Helena Blavatsky was another who parroted Taxil’s slush as fact. However, what a fool they are to those of us who are wise to them! What a fool they become, when outed like this! Brent Morris, PhD, a well renowned Masonic historian, stated that this hoax, which turned into an urban legend, reminded him of the legend of the “woman who dried her poodle in a microwave oven.” (6) Plus, what is really the kicker, is that many in the prejudiced and bigoted church clergy, will use the writings of an anti-cleric and pornographer, as fact, for their evidence against Freemasonry! [1a] If you think that there aren’t any people in this world whom aren’t gullible enough to fall for this muck, then think again. The problem is that the lying charlatans know it, and they use these poor gullible souls for monetary gain. These charlatans and prejudiced bigots are the ones that I wish to see utterly destroyed, by using their own words and facts against them.

Finally, we follow Taxil to the end of the April 19th, 1897 confession, with the quotes from him below:

Mr. Léo Taxil — I shall recall two typical facts.

Under the pen-name “Dr. Bataille” I related—and under that of “Miss Vaughan” I confirmed—that the Masonic temple in Charleston contained a maze at the center of which stays the chapel of Lucifer…


Mr. Oscar Havard. — The bishop of Charleston declared this to be an imposture.

Mr. Léo Taxil — So it is. I was going to say so in a moment. But do not triumph yet. Wait a little!… I said that in the Masonic temple in Charleston one of the rooms, triangular in shape, called the Sanctum Regnum, has as its main ornament a monstrous statue of Baphomet, which the High-Masons worship. That in another room, a statue of Eve comes alive when a Templar Mistress is especially agreeable to Master Satan, and that this statue then turns into the demon Astarte, for a moment alive, and gives a kiss to the preferred Templar Mistress. I published the alleged map of this Masonic building, a plan which I designed myself. Now, Msgr. Northrop, Catholic bishop of Charleston, went to Rome expressly to assure the Sovereign Pontiff of the highest fantasy of these writings. This journey would have remained unknown if Msgr. Northrop, on his way to Rome, had not let himself be interviewed. Which is how what he came to tell the Pope became public. He had come to say: “It is false, absolutely false, that the Freemasons of Charleston are the chiefs of a supreme luciferian rite. I am especially well acquainted with the most important ones. They are Protestants, inspired by the best intentions. Not one of them considers practicing occultism. I visited their temple, none of the rooms indicated by Doctor Bataille or Miss Vaughan are to be found there. The map is a hoax.” On his return from Rome, Msgr. Northrup did not protest any more and has kept silent ever since. Miss Diana Vaughan, on the contrary, replied to Msgr. Northrop’s interview; she said the Bishop of Charleston was himself a Freemason and she received the Pope’s blessing.


Second fact. Under the signatures of Bataille and Vaughan, I recounted and confirmed that immense secret workshops were located in Gibraltar under the English fortress, in which men-monsters fabricated all the instruments used in the ceremonies of Palladism, and Miss Diana’ Vaughan, asked about this by Roman high ecclesiastical dignitaries, enjoyed herself answering in her cutest style that nothing was more true and that the forges of the mysterious workshops of Gibraltar were fed by the very fires of Hell. (Laughter) Msgr. the Apostolic Vicar of Gibraltar wrote, on the other hand, that he confirmed what he had been forced to declare to various people, namely that the story of the secret workshops was an audacious invention, resting on no foundation whatsoever, nothing whatsoever, and that he was indignant to witness the creation of such legends. The Vatican did not publish the letter of the Apostolic Vicar of Gibraltar, and Miss Vaughan received the blessing of the Pope.

(Applause. —Many voices: Bravo Taxil!)

The masons of France, of Italy, of England, laughed in their sleeves and right they were. On the other hand, a German Mason, Findel, got real mad and thundered forth a very well written pamphlet. Great excitement. That pamphlet was like a paving stone in a frogs’ pond.

A strong reaction appeared necessary. Findel endangered the final success of my hoax: his grand mistake was to think that it was a plot set up by the Jesuits—unfortunate Jesuits! I had sent them a fragment of the Moloch’s tail, as a piece of evidence of Palladism!

(Explosion of laughter)

Disquiet crept into the Vatican. Jumping from one extreme to another they got into a panic. They wondered whether they were not confronted with a hoax about to smash the Church instead of serving it. They named a secret commission of inquiry in order to ascertain what they were to believe.

Since then, the danger becoming great, my work was endangered, and I did not want to get shipwrecked. The danger was silence, strangling the hoax in the oubliettes of the Roman Commission, preventing Catholic papers from breathing a word.

My friend, the doctor, went to Cologne; from there, he put me in the picture. And forewarned I left for the Congress of Trent, well forewarned. When I came back, the first person I saw was my friend. I told him of my fear of silent strangling.

Then we agreed upon all that was to be done and written. If the editors of the Universe doubt it, I can name them parts they left out of the letters of Dr. Bataille. It was I who stoked their fire that way, then it was necessary for the world press to be made aware of this grand and bizarre epic. And a good deal of time was necessary so that the uproar of furious Catholics, the polemic, with those in favor of Miss Diana Vaughan, would catch the notice of the major newspapers, those who walk along with progress and count millions of readers.


Before ending, I must pay my respects to an unknown hoaxster, a shrewd American colleague. Among hoaxsters, one understands each other from one end of the world to the other, without needing to exchange letters, without even having to drop a call. Respects, therefore, to the dear citizen of Kentucky, who had the friendly thought of helping us without any prior agreement, who confirmed the revelations of Miss Diana Vaughan to the Louisville Courier-Journal, who certified to whoever wanted to hear, that he had known Miss Diana Vaughan, intimately, for seven or eight years, and that he often met her in the various secret societies of Europe and America… where she never set foot. [2a]


You were told that Palladism would be knocked down today. Better still, it is annihilated, it is no more.

In my general confession to the Jesuit father of Clamart, I had accused myself of an imaginary murder. Well, I will admit to a further crime. I committed infanticide. Palladism is now dead for good. Its father just murdered it.

(An indescribable tumult meets this conclusion. Some laugh more and more and applaud the lecturer. Catholics scream and hiss. Abbot Garnier steps on a chair and attempts to address the audience, but he is hindered by the hoot. A few listeners strike up the comic song by Meusy: O Sacred Heart of Jesus!) [sic]

The confession was fully transcribed, in its entirety, in the Parisian newspaper Le Frondeur, on April 25, 1897, titled: Twelve Years Under the Banner of the Church, The Prank Of Palladism. Miss Diana Vaughan-The Devil At The Freemasons. A Conference held by M. Léo Taxil, at the Hall of the Geographic Society in Paris. A photo of the front page of this newspaper is below, as some of the anti-Masonic charlatans and liars try to claim that it doesn’t exist. Now, I wonder why? Maybe they’ll just say or write anything to try to discredit the truth; the light? One can find this same newspaper on digital file, at several large libraries, especially in France and the UK. The hoax was also reported with the full or partial transcript, as in Le Frondeur, in many issues of other newspapers and magazines around Europe, in their April and May editions!


Now, to the finale; Taxil’s second confession in the magazine, National Magazine, an Illustrated American Monthly, Volume 24: April – September, 1906, (7) where Taxil states that he actually did it all for the money, by being a Munchausen (liar) of the right kind. Below is directly quoted from the magazine. Léo Taxil died only a year later, in 1907.

Members of the Masonic orders understand the false exposure heaped upon that organization in anti-Mason wars. The Catholic church and many other religious orders have been the victims of these half-written and oftentimes venomous attacks. The confession of Taxil, the French Free-thinker, who first exposed Catholics and then Masons, makes interesting reading bearing on the present situation today. Similar motives actuate some of the “muck rakes” of today, as indicated in the following confession:

“The public made me what I am; the arch-liar of the period,” confessed Taxil, “for when I first commenced to write against the Masons my object was amusement pure and simple. The crimes I laid at their door were so grotesque, so impossible, so widely exaggerated, I thought everybody would see the joke and give me credit for originating a new line of humor. But my readers wouldn’t have it so; they accepted my fables as gospel truth, and the more I lied for the purpose of showing that I lied, the more convinced became they that I was a paragon of veracity.

“Then it dawned upon me that there was lots of money in being a Munchausen [liar] of the right kind, and for twelve years I gave it to them hot and strong, but never too hot. When inditing such slush as the story of the devil snake who wrote prophecies on Diana’s back with the end of his tail, I sometimes said to myself: ‘Hold on, you are going too far,’ but I didn’t. My readers even took kindly to the yarn of the devil who, in order to marry a Mason, transformed himself into a crocodile, and, despite the masquerade, played the piano wonderfully well.

“One day when lecturing at Lille, I told my audience that I had just had an apparition of Nautilus, the most daring affront on human credulity I had so far risked. But my hearers never turned a hair. ‘Hear ye, the doctor has seen Nautulius,’ they said with admiring glances. Of course no one had a clear idea of who Nautilus was, I didn’t myself, but they assumed that he was a devil.

“Ah, the jolly evenings I spent with my fellow authors hatching out new plots, new, unheard of perversions of truth and logic, each trying to outdo the other in organized mystification. I thought I would kill myself laughing at some of the things proposed, but everything went; there is no limit to human stupidity”. [sic]


National Magazine’s 1906 article of Taxil’s second confession. (Page 270 in the compiled article pdf version).

Last, a translation of another French article by Edmond Frank in l’Illustration, May 1. 1897- No. 2827: Paris, France, titled “A Hoax”.

Last April 19th, before numerous people in the amphitheatre of the Geographic Society, Mr. Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, also known as Léo Taxil, solemnly denounced the Catholicism to which he had converted, no less solemnly, twelve years ago. In itself, this single manifestation was not an important event: at most it might give substance to a “diverse subject” or an “echo” article in a newspaper. Why then has the press deigned to accord it historical and newsworthy status? And why do we resign ourselves here to allot it the full honours of noteworthiness? The personality of Mr. Léo Taxil, the particular character of his conversion in the past and his renounciation yesterday would suffice to motivate this publicity; it finds its justification in the general ideas that are put into play and the reflections suggested by an adventure where the burlesque mixed with the serious.

When, in 1889, Mr. Léo Taxil effected his first great coup, he was already enjoying a certain notoriety because of the publication of an entire special library dedicated to anti-clerical propaganda. It was not only the sin of non-belief that was weighing on his conscience; it was a heavy pile of volumes and of brochures; stories to keep you awake at night; grotesque pamphlets, read garbage; by which he pretended, by ridiculing and soiling the Catholic religion, it’s ministers and adepts; to educate the popular masses and to win them over to the cult of pure reason and Free Thinking. Furthermore, to promote his campaign–mostly a library campaign–he had used such unscrupulous means that, among the Freemasons of which he claimed to be, more than one had come to disavow a too compromising zealot.

Suddenly, after fifteen years of rude work spent paddling in the mire of a swampy but lucrative literature, the impious pamphleteer, soaked to the waist, finds a new calling. He renounces Satan and his base works: once so proud, he burns all that he has adored and adores all that he once burned: in short, he makes honorable public amends, confesses, attends mass, takes communion, and throws himself at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff. “My son,” the Pope asks him, “what do you want?” – “Holy Father, to die at your feet, there, at this moment… It would be my greatest joy!” responds the prostate penitent. “Not to die,” answers Léon XIII with a benevolent smile, “your life is still very useful for the struggles of faith.”

This alleged conversion of Mr. Léo Taxil’s, which justly touched the Catholic world and the Free Thinking world, was but the prologue of a comedy, of an enormous farce in many acts, conceived and constructed by a hoaxer more inventive than concerned about his own dignity. Here is the scenario very briefly outlined:

Act One: Simulations of repentance and of penitence, pious practices proper to edifying the clergy and to capture it’s full confidence. Diffusion of small books directed against FreeMasonry.

Act Two: Invention of Palladism or High Luciferian Masonry, divulging of secret rites of lodges and back-lodges of the entire world, vowed to the cult of Lucifer.

Act Three: Entrance of Miss. Diana Vaughan, so called ex-luciferian of high mark, converted to Catholicism, who reveals in her “Memoires” the diablic mysteries of this damned sect, receives pontifical benediction and maintains a continuous correspondence with the most eminent members of the clergy.

Act Four and final scene: Evening of April 19th 1897, organized in Paris in the room of the Geographic Society, and announced with great fanfare. The announced programme includes:

1st: The raffle of a writing machine offered by Miss. Diana Vaughan;

2nd: A lecture entitled “Twelve years under the banner of the Church” by Mr. Léo Taxil.

3rd: Palladism exposed, a conference accompanied by light show projections by Miss. Diana Vaughan.

The writing machine is raffled and is won by a young journalist. The evening begins… but, to the great disappointment of the public, wisely composed of a mix of priests, avowed catholics and free thinkers (the organizer later admitted to having selected the audience), the most impatiently awaited person, the mysterious, the extraordinary heroine whose problematic existence would dispel much speculation, and whom some sceptics had dared to treat as a myth, having stayed until then in the corridors-Miss Diana Vaughan does not appear. Mr. Léo Taxil, in correct evening dress, occupies the stage, alone. With serene impudence, in even tones, he denounces his own imposture, completely empties his bag of malice, explains complacantly how, for twelve years, he has betrayed and duped the clergy and has made fun of everyone. “Ladies and Gentlemen,” he cried out in a peremptory manner, “I am admitting my crime. I commited infanticide: Palladism, now, is dead, very dead. Its father has just killed it.”

And he leaves the audience, first dumbfounded, more sickened than indignant by this sadly grotesque spectacle. Here now is the second great coup of the terrible “backslider” from religion.

As for Miss. Diana Vaughan, the pseudo-convert, he only half assasinated her; if she died with Palladism, of which she was the incarnation, she subsists and is doing wonderfully in the form of a young “typist”, meaning virtuoso of the writing machine, secretary and accomplice of Mr. Léo Taxil, at the modest monthly appointment of 150 francs. During the anti-masonic convention of Thirty, her patron had brought to Paris, as authentic document, a portrait representing the invisible American woman in her official dress of “grand mistress general inspector of the luciferian triangles”. It was “on sale”, according to commercial terms: it was paid for handsomely by a local photographer, whom we needed only to ask for the copy reproduced here.

“The most colossal hoax of modern times”, this is how Mr. Léo Taxil himself termed his enterprise, and, in his modest success, he does not hesitate to give himself the title of king of modern pranksters. He flatters himself in having used his natural talents, perfected with a gradual training, for the good of society, infected with the virus of superstition. Since the odiousness of his parodies and contradictory mummeries seem to evade Mr. Taxil, let us not pause to scold him on this point; let us stick to considering him the joyous and gigantic prankster that he claims to be.

Well! He singularly exaggerates the professional merits and importance of his role. Compared to the exaggeration of the Midi, the effect of the provincial sun, so prettily explained by Alphonse Daudet; our Marseillian bears, even under other skies; the hyperbolic mirage that makes a turnip into a jewelled carbuncle; the emulation of the illustrious Gaudissart and close cousin of the Tartarin, Taxil’s charades, as all the rest, assume magified proportions in his own eyes. Voluntarily, he measures his dimensions with the efforts and fabrication of his imagination. When all is said and done, he must reduce some of it. Coiffed with a fez reminiscent of the famous chechia feminine of legendary Tarasconnais; armed, not like her by an arsenal of guns, pistols and daggers, but with a writing desk and a box of traps, he too wanted, to hunt the big game, force to it’s repair the clerical Hydra. What has he gained? His dignity.

The unique concession that we might make to his vanity is to note that he is one of the first to have erected a social career, an industrial profession, on the art of fraud, nevertheless still classifying it among the flimsy fantasies. Mr. Léo Taxil, it is true, protests highly his complete disinterest. He affirms that he only worked for a greater glory. So, he must find himself well paid for his troubles, if in his eyes, glory consists in being doubly denounced, discredited, burned in all camps, in hearing himself referred to as “coquin, canaille, gredin, fripouille, crapule”, an unworldly crook, all epithets borrowed textually from the official report of the evening of April 19th. All published by the organizer himself that is! Each understands glory in his own fashion; and it is in this way that this grinning, chattering greybeard expresses his profound satisfaction.

But at least, may he no more abuse us with his superiority as a prankster. There is little to envy in seeing another, alone in amusing himself with his own self-importance; it is ungraceful to dress oneself up with human credulity when one is such a superb example of credulity in sincerely believing oneself the greatest hoaxer of the century. (12) [sic]

I imagine that some may hate me right now, (the charlatans and liars),  but I do not care one whit about this type of person, since I would never associate myself with the likes of them to begin with. I am far above giving their type the time of day. What I do care about, though, is seeking more light and seeking the factual truth, as you the reader, or anyone else should too.

So Mote It Be


  1. Léo Taxil at
  2. Rene Guenon and the Future of the West, Published, 1987, p.32-36, by Robin Waterfield.
  3. Taxil’s complete confession from the newspaper, Le Frondeur, April 25th, 1897. Translated from French to English by Alain Bernheim, A. William Samii, and Eric Serejski, “The Confession of Léo Taxil,” Heredom, Transactions of the Scottish Research Society, vol. 5, pp. 137-68. © 1997
  4. Humanum genus at Wikipedia
  5. Comments on the Humanum Genus
  6. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Freemasonry, Second Edition, By S. Brent Morris, PhD
  7. National Magazine’s article on Taxil’s second confession. The National Magazine, an Illustrated American Monthly, Volume 24: April – September, 1906
  8. Tropmann and Dumolard were two French serial killers of the time.
  9. Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World, New York University Press, 2014, by Kembrew McLeod.
  10. See my article: The psychology of conspiracy believers and theorists.
  11. US News and World Report, Devil in a Red Fez, The lie about the Freemasons lives on. Article by Dan Gilgoff, Aug. 18, 2002, read the article here.
  12. Reprinted from an article by Edmond Frank in l’Illustration, May 1. 1897- No. 2827: Paris, France. A Hoax.

Personal Notes:

[1a] The churches that are mentioned, will deny that Taxil is the source that they cite, by citing books from either conspiracy theorists, especially the older books by Edith Starr Miller and William Guy Carr, those written by people such as Taxil’s henchmen, or books by other clergy, such as Cardinal Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, which are parroting Taxil’s words and the hoax. They have gone as far to make claims that Freemasonry is lying about Taxil’s two confessions, which are, in fact, both in print, and the proof is above.

[2a] Taxil is quoted as saying:

“Respects therefore to the dear citizen of Kentucky who had the friendly thought of helping us without any prior agreement, who confirmed the revelations of Miss Diana Vaughan to the Louisville Courier-Journal, who certified to whoever wanted to hear that he had known Miss Diana Vaughan intimately for seven or eight years and that he often met her in the various secret societies of Europe and America… where she never set foot”.

That newspaper was owned by some of my distant relation, the Bingham family of the US, Britain, and Ireland. I have two feelings about this. One, I wish the paper and my family had not helped to affect Freemasonry so, by lending Taxil any credence. Two, I am glad that the hoax exploded in Pope Leo XIII’s face, as it did, because he was a self-righteous, meddling, controlling, untruthful, and bigoted Pope, who was once cartooned in the US, as a skinny, large-nosed fox, that couldn’t reach the grapes overhead. The grapes were a metaphor for the US secular school system. One can see a US schoolhouse in the background of the sketch. The cartoon was titled “sour grapes”, and was in several publications of the time.

To put the Pope into more perspective, during this same time frame,  he brought about the separation of church and state, by his own actions, in Chile, because of his pontifical benediction being extended over Chilean troops on the eve of the Battle of Chorrillos, during the War of the Pacific, in January 1881, where they looted the cities of Chorrillos and Barranco, including the churches, and their Chaplains headed the robbery at the Biblioteca Nacional del Perú, where the soldiers ransacked various items along with much capital, because Chilean Priests coveted rare and ancient editions of the Bible that were stored there. Paintings, wealth, gold, and rare copies of the bible were the Pope’s plunder. Later, a law on the separation of church and state followed. Maybe, Pope Leo XIII’s actions was where the Italian mafioso learned it all?

Last, during this same time, Pope Leo XIII did something that I would consider being of “idiotic significance,” where his words was against those in the English speaking world. Leo wrote the encyclical: Apostolicae Curae, which was about him proclaiming the invalidity of the Anglican churches orders published in 1896. It declared all Anglican ordinations to be “absolutely null and utterly void”. He seemed to think that he could override the Anglican Protestant church in its own country, that of Britain. Well, he did have it in his mind that he was infallible after all. Nuff Said.

Pope-Sour GrapesPope Leo XIII

Copyright CRIA Images.

There is no control of the public schools for you, in the US, Pope Leo XIII, so have a sour grape.


Who is Lucifer?

Lucifer is like the word, Satan, in regards to it not being a who but a what. The word, Lucifer, is a Latin word meaning Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, or light-bearer. In the Latin Vulgate Bible, Jesus was referred to as the Bright Morning Star at Revelation 22:16, and thus, Lucifer. (1)(2)(11)

The Latin word, Lucifer, is used only once in the King James Version Bible, at Isaiah 14:12, but was used several times in the Latin Vulgate Bible, in the place of Morning Star, Son of the Morning, or Lightbearer, etc. (1)(2)(11)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 14:12, from The Complete Jewish Bible, with Rashi Commentary (The Hebrew text version is included at it’s side):

12) How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer about Isaiah 14:12 (11):

Throughout this and the preceding chapter of Isaiah, the prophet foretells the rise and fall of this arrogant Babylonian king who would use his unbridled power to plunder Jerusalem and destroy its Temple but, ultimately, would suffer a cataclysmic downfall. In 14:12, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to the planet Venus whose light is still visible in the morning, yet vanishes with the rise of the sun. Like the light of Venus, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign shone brilliantly for a short time, yet, as the prophets foretold, it was eventually overshadowed by the nation of Israel whose light endured and outlived this arrogant king who tormented and exiled her.

The KJV Bible has only one mention of Lucifer, at Isaiah 14:12, due to King James VI & Is Hebrew translators at that time. Here, if the translator did not understand a Hebrew word, they referred to the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, and used it. Plus, they had their own ingrained beliefs on the verse, though those were incorrect. Thus, the one inclusion of the word, Lucifer, was over an error in the words true meaning in that verse. However, Isaiah 14:12 is not speaking of Satan, some devil, a fallen angel, nor any anti-God, but it is speaking of the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Light Bearer, or the planet Venus, as the verse compares the rise and fall of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar II, to how the Morning Star appears before sunrise, and then quickly disappears as dawn breaks. (6)(11) This is proven by verse at Isaiah 14:4: “ That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!” It is needless to say that the Jews do not believe in some anti-God nor devil named Satan, nor Lucifer. John Calvin, the reformist and father of Calvinism, said this about Isaiah 14:12:

The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.“–Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah.

Here, Calvin is referring to Isaiah 14:4.  Martin Luther also considered it a “gross error” to refer to this verse as being about Satan. (2) This is also explained in the footnote for Isaiah 14:12, in the Geneva Bible, which is older than the KJV:

12: Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven [the Babylonian king]: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.

The word, Lucifer, after its bastardization, became popular in books such as Dante Alighieri’s book, Inferno, Joost van den Vondel’s play, Lucifer, and John Milton’s book, Paradise Lost, thus spreading the fallacy to the multitudes.

Present-day translations have “Morning Star” for Isaiah 14:12, in the bibles New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible. It is “daystar” in the New Jerusalem Bible, English Standard Version, and The Message. It is “Day Star” in the New Revised Standard Version. It is “shining one” in the New Life Version, New World Translation, and JPS Tanakh, or “shining star” in the New Living Translation. The King James Version is misunderstood at Isaiah 14:12, due to using the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Isaiah 14, by St. Jerome. Here, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar (Morning Star) into the Latin word, luciferos, which isn’t incorrect but misinterpreted by the Protestant clergy. However, it is found that the newer Protestant Bible versions, listed above, are incorrectly translated at other places, such as at Isaiah 45:7, where the KJV is correct.

Lucifer, at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.[sic]

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).[sic]

Lucifer, at the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Septuagint translation of “Helel [read “Helal”] ben Shaḥar” (= “the brilliant one,” “son of the morning”), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel (“Schöpfung und Chaos,” pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).[sic]

The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the northern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samḥazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enoch, vi. 6 et seq.; see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samḥazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol (see Midr. Abḳir in Yalḳ. i. 44; Raymund Martin, “Pugio Fidei,” p. 564). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adæ et Evæ [Life of Adam and Eve](8) and Slavonic Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4), where Satan-Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived “to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble ‘My power’ on high,” Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. ii. 2, vi. 12). Accordingly Tertullian (“Contra Marrionem,” v. 11, 17), Origen (“Ezekiel Opera,” iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being “cast down from heaven” (Rev. xii. 7, 10; comp. Luke x. 18).

Isaiah 14:12-15 and Lucifer, in the NIV Application Commentary, Bundle 3:

Isaiah 14:12-15. From a contextual standpoint, this pericope concerns the king of Babylon and, accordingly, is placed among the oracles against the nations. It takes the form of a taunt (v. 5 [4]) anticipating the tyrant’s imminent demise. His descent to the netherworld (vv. 9-11) is described with relish. Verses 12-15 refer to his downfall, despite his aspirations to divine grandeur.

Throughout most church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. The earliest appearance of this association can be found in the writings of Origen. Satan’s fall had been discussed earlier by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, but with no obvious references to Isaiah 14. This is not surprising since Satan is mentioned nowhere in the passage. Jewish writings (cf. 2 [2nd] Enoch 29:4-5) had stories of the fall of Satan, but there is no evidence that Isaiah 14 was interpreted in relation to the fall.

The doctrine of Satan’s fall and its association with Isaiah 14 passed into the mainstream of Christian theology through Moralia 34 by Pope Gregory the Great in the seventh century. Once part of popular belief, it is easily passed into the great pieces of literature such as Milton’s Paradise Lost, which sustained its place in theology. The doctrine was also solidified by the way Isaiah 14 was handled in translation. [St.] Jerome, interpreting the difficult Hebrew term, Helel in v. 12 (NIV: “morning star”) as a reference to Venus, used a Latin term for Venus, luciferos, to translate it. As the interpretation of the passage as a reference to Satan became popularized in the centuries following, lucifer was adopted as a variant name for Satan – because that was what Satan was called in the passage!

“Tertullian and other fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regarding Luke 10:18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name lucifer to signify the devil.”–[The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, by Joseph Addison Alexander, PhD, Theology, Princeton University, 1846.]

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the major English translations were being produced, the interpretation was so ingrained that “Lucifer” was retained, even in the KJV. This reinforced to the lay English reader that the passage explicitly concerned Satan.

Despite the wide popular support for this interpretation, there was no lack of opposition. Neither Calvin nor Luther supports the idea that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. Calvin is particularly undiplomatic as his [he] heaps scorn on those who adopt such noncontextual intrusion.

“The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”–[Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah] [sic]

Quoting Pope Gregory the Great, from Moralia, bk. 32, chp. 23, no. 48 on the word, lucifer: “That is why he was called Lucifer [i.e. morning star], as Isaias attests, saying: How have you fallen, Lucifer, who used to rise in the morning, etc.” Here, he was speaking of Isaiah (Isaias) 14:12, and completely destroyed the intent of the verse, which can be found at Isaiah 14:4.

Somewhere along the way, the church clergy tied Luke 10:18 (“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.“) to Isaiah 14:12, because they sounded similar, even though they are about two entirely different circumstances and times, to concoct the lucifer equals satan fallacy. However, it gets deeper, when one actually reads all of Luke, chapter 10, and one can see that this satan or adversary, was Jesus and the apostle’s adversary, and they were the towns and the people mentioned in the scripture that were also called “devils”, such as the people in Capernaum, where in Luke 10:15, Jesus states “And thou, Capernaum, [the city and the people] which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.” Satan is used correctly, here, as the town and people were an adversary or stumbling block to the apostles ministering, which Jesus cursed, saying that he would throw them to hell, where they would fall like lightning, just as the word, satan, was used in Matthew 16:22-23. These verses in Luke, also reminds one of the Hellenist scribe’s, (who wrote Luke), myth of Zeus casting Typhon to Hades, does it not?

Matthew 16:22-23

22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23) But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

The above scripture, is the best definition of the Hebrew word, satan, in the New Testament. Here, the word, satan is used exactly as the Hebrews define it, an adversary, or one who impedes others, a “stumbling block”, and not a devil. The Jews have never believed in a devil nor a fallen angel, that creates all evil and sin. Jesus didn’t either, especially since he was a Pharisee, which is mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. It also seems that the Gospel’s scribes had a love for capitalizing the word satan, as if it were someone’s name.

One can clearly see, from the quotes above, that it may have been St. Jerome who started this fallacy, and somehow, this made it to the early Protestants, due the 7th century pope, Gregory the Great, who continued the fallacy of the word. However, the “Fathers,” which are all of the Catholic clergy, and all the way back to the time of St. Jerome, say differently. One can also see that the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar, does not equate to a devil or a Satan. However, the Christians use Enoch, for the tale of a devil or “fallen angel” that they named Satan, but turn right around and say that Enoch is not biblical canon, and the book was placed in the apocrypha over it. The church does not reveal that another source for Satan is from the Greek pagan God of the underworld, Hades, later renamed Pluto in the 5th century BCE, who supposedly held souls in a purgatory (a Greek place known as Tartarus) as a punishment, before releasing the soul to go on, nor do they reveal that the fallen angel myth came from the story of the Greek God, Zeus, defeating Typhon, where afterwards, Zeus cast Typhon down into Tartarus, (the underworld or purgatory), which is also similar to the story from the apocryphal books of Enoch, that had its roots in Persian pagan dualistic Zoroastrianism. The Hellenists in the early Catholic church, merged the pagan tales of Hades (Pluto), Zeus defeating Typhon, Enoch, and Zoroaster’s dualism to create a devil or a fallen angel, and all are pagan myths or apocryphal. The Jews have always stated that Enoch is not biblical canon, has its roots in Zoroastrianism, and that it is a fictional or bogus tale, which flies in the face of Gods words in the Tanakh, and that the two books of Enoch, or any other apocryphal books, are not to be believed. I would think that mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that which grew from the Pharisees, know more about the Jewish books and Judaism, than the early Christians such as Paul, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, or even St. Jerome. Look at the mistake of St. Jerome, where he used a mistranslation of the Hebrew noun helel, by using the verb yalal, which means “to lament.”

Below is from A History of Zoroastrianism, The Early Period By Mary Boyce, Prof. Iranian Studies, University of London, 1996:



From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Enoch:

“Apocryphal works attributed to Enoch. From Gen. v. 24 (“Enoch walked with God” and “God took him”) a cycle of Jewish legends about Enoch was derived, which, together with apocalyptic speculations naturally ascribed to such a man, credited with superhuman knowledge, found their literary expression in the Books of Enoch. ….These legends, a more popular form of tradition, are, however, not preserved unimpaired, but are strongly influenced and developed by the literary traditions which deal mainly with apocalyptic ideas.”

On the Ethiopic Enoch:

“By about 300 [AD] the Christian Church began to discredit the book, and after the time of the Greek fathers Syncellus and Cedrenus, who cite it (ninth century), it was entirely lost until (1773), [where] the traveler Bruce discovered in Abyssinia two manuscripts of the book. In the nineteenth century several editions and translations were made, and many critical inquiries into its contents published.”

On the Slavonic Enoch:

“The book was probably written between 50 B.C. and 70 A.D.; the first date is given by the fact that Ethiopic Enoch, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are used; the second by the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned at all. The quotations from Slavonic Enoch in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which Charles uses as additional evidence in establishing the date, are strongly doubted by Schürer. The Slavonic Enoch furnishes new material for the study of religious thought in Judaism about the beginning of the common era. The ideas of the millennium and of the seven heavens are the most important in this connection; both have been treated in detail by Charles in his introduction and commentary, published together with Morfill’s translation. Another very interesting feature is the presence of evil in heaven—the fallen angels in the second heaven, and hell in the third. This belief, although probably at first current among the Christians also, was, together with the idea of the seven heavens, afterward rejected by the Church.”

Quoting Merriam-Websters on apocrypha:

In Bible study, the term “Apocrypha” refers to sections of the Bible that are not sanctioned as belonging to certain official canons. In some Protestant versions these sections appear between the Old and New Testaments. More generally, the word refers to writings or statements whose purported origin is in doubt. Consequently, the adjective “apocryphal” describes things like legends and anecdotes that are purported to be true by way of repeated tellings but that have never been proven or verified and therefore most likely are not factual. Both “apocrypha” and “apocryphal” derive via Latin from the Greek verb apokryptein, meaning “to hide away,” from “kryptein” (“to hide”). [sic]

Next, I quote the testimony of the Anglican Bishop Burnet, in his 70th year, speaking about the newly ordained clergy, in 1713, and their lack of education on biblical theology and history. These are the same Protestants who pushed the lucifer fallacy:

[They] are the burden and grief of my life…the much greater part of those (the Clergy) that come to be ordained, are ignorant to a degree not to be apprehended by those who are not obliged to know it. They can give no account, or at least a very imperfect one, even of the contents of the Gospels. Those who have read some few books, yet, never seem to have read the scriptures; many can not give a tolerable account even of the catechism itself how short and plain soever.__”An Historical Sketch of the Churches and Intemperance, by Thomas Tregaskis, 1844.”

Bishop Burnet was giving testimony, in 1713, 102 years after the first printing of the KJV Bible in 1611, and it seems that the clergy are not much better off educated today, in the 21st century. When researching this topic, I ran across a discussion about this at the baptistboard dot com, and had a good laugh. One KJV Only commentator made this statement to another: “Did you read Isaiah 14:12 in Hebrew for yourself?” Why yes, I most certainly did, both the Hebrew and the translated English, along with picking up the Jewish Encyclopedia on the topic. This is the type of KJV Only hot-head that spreads this ignorance folks. Even those on the forum, whom were semi-correct, could not wrap their minds around the reason why Jesus referred to himself as the Morning Star. Really?

Later, in the late 1890s, Léo Taxil, a pen name for Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès, created a hoax against Freemasonry and the Catholic church, based on the use of the word, Lucifer, by Albert Pike, a Freemason, who had become the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite’s Southern Jurisdiction, in 1859. (3)(4)(5) Here, Albert Pike wrote in his book, Morals & Dogma, questioning why the word, Lucifer, was used for the name of the spirit of darkness.

Quoting Albert Pike and his book, Morals & Dogma:

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Zohar. It is written hieroglyphically, with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! Let him who understands, calculate”, he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore, did not write to be understood by the multitude. [sic]

As one can clearly see, Pike mentions that those taking the nineteenth degree, think that Lucifer is the name of some Satan or devil. He then goes on to reveal the truth, in that the word, Lucifer, does not mean this, but it does mean light-bearer, in Latin, or the Roman and Greek astrological Morning Star, Venus, Son of the Morning. What brought Pike into trouble, was calling Lucifer a “he,” (which the use of in the Apocalypse is correct),  and Taxil used this to his advantage, in the Taxil Hoax, knowing of the peoples ignorance to the truth. Pike did not write anything that stated that Freemasonry worshiped a devil, Lucifer, or Satan, as the hoax claimed.

What did Pike mean, then, by stating that the word Lucifer was a “he?” He was referring to the Apocalypse, which is the Catholic title for the book of Revelation in the Latin Vulgate bible, which Pike mentions in this very paragraph. If we look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, it mentions that Lucifer refers: “finally to Jesus Christ himself 2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16.” So, what Pike actually meant, was that Jesus was the Morning Star and Son of the Morning, in the Apocalypse, and Pike asks if that it was “he” who was bearing the light, and was blinding the feeble minds or souls of the sensual and selfish (sinners). This is what Pike actually wrote about in his book, and not the spirit of darkness, some Satan, nor some anti-God. Pike even states that the Apocalypse was not meant to be understood, just as Pike is hiding this truth about what the word, Lucifer, means within his writing. He shows that those Protestants who are taking the 19th degree, think that the word, Lucifer, equates to Satan, and they are incorrect in that thinking. Of course, many Protestant churches like to deny that Jesus was ever called Lucifer, when he was, in fact, by calling himself the Bright Morning Star, and those in the many churches and synagogues of Europe, such as the Catholic and Jewish, tried to tell them so, including two well renowned Protestant church leaders, Calvin and Luther. King James’ Hebrew translators had been indoctrinated into the Lucifer equals Satan myth, and thus mistranslated Isaiah 14:12 the way they did, over their ingrained belief, even though they were most emphatically incorrect!

Apocalypse – Revelation 22:16, Latin Vulgate

(16) I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you the assurance of this in your churches; I, the root, I, the offspring of David’s race, I, the bright star that brings in the day. [English]

(16) Ego Jesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis hæc in ecclesiis. Ego sum radix, et genus David, stella splendida et matutina. [Latin]

The day star, the “bright star that brings in the day”, or the “stella splendida et matutina“, is the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, the Latin Lucifer meaning light-bearer, a planet that is only viewable in the morning, just before dawn, and which finally disappears with the light of dawn. That is why the King of Babylon was compared to it, as it looked like he quickly rose and fell like the Morning Star, Venus, in Isiah 14:12. (11) Jesus the Nazarite, too, rose and fell quickly, dying by the age of 34 (4 BC-30 AD).

Later, A. E. Waite completely debunked this hoax, in his book: Devil Worship in France, London, 1896 (7). I give credit to Waite, here, even though he was not a well thought of Freemason, over his other views and writing. Taxil had also been found out, and debunked by the Catholic Bishop of Charleston, SC, The Right Rev. Henry P. Northrop, and by the Monsignor, the Apostolic Vicar of Gibraltar, Gonzalo Canilla. (9) Even Taxil’s friend and hoax conspirator, Dr. Charles Hacks, (whose pen name was Dr. Bataille), even admitted to the fraud, and said that he had helped to write The Devil in the Nineteenth Century, and that there was money to be made on the “known credulity and unknown idiocy of the Catholics.” (10) Afterwards, many in the clergy started to wise up, and they began to hold Taxil at an arms length, plus they began to silence themselves about Taxil’s claims. After Taxil was exposed, and he saw the hoax starting to crumble, he called a large press conference at the Hall of the Geographic Society in Paris, France, on April 19th, 1897, claiming that he would produce Mrs. Diana Vaughan, the heroine written about in the books, but instead, he made a full confession to the press and the clergy about the hoax. He stated that Diana was a fabrication, and that he had used the name of his typist. He revealed this before the church and the pope had the opportunity to try to silence the press, and thus, silence the truth. For further information, see the article on the Taxil Hoax. (4)(5)


  1. Lucifer at Encyclopedia Britannica
  2. Lucifer at Wikipedia
  3. Léo Taxil at
  4. Taxil Hoax at Wikipedia
  5. The Confession of Léo Taxil at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon
  6. Isaiah, chap. 14, at The Complete Jewish Bible
  7. AE Waite, Devil Worship in France, 1896.
  8. Vita Adæ et Evæ, or the Life of Adam and Eve, also known, in its Greek version, as the Apocalypse of Moses, along with the Enoch books, are a Jewish pseudepigraphical group of apocryphal writings. They have a false authorship and they are fictional works, thus, noncanonical.
  9. Taxil admitted, at the conference in Paris, that both the Bishop of Charleston and Vicar of Gibraltar had caught him red handed, in the hoax. See the complete transcription for Taxil’s confession about the hoax.
  10. Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World, New York University Press, 2014, by Kembrew McLeod.
  11. Rabbi Tovia Singer, Who is Satan.

Who is Satan?

Updated: 12-02-16

Now, one may ask, who is Satan? I will be very blunt in answering this; there is no Satan, as Satan is not a who, especially in Judaism and the ancient religions of the Levant, (11) nor in Mesopotamia. In these early religions, there was no such thing as an anti-God, or some anti-deity or devil, that always opposes the will of God, and who drags sinners into some burning hell, after death, to forever punish. (11) The two religions that would have believed in an anti-God was those of the pagan Roman and Greek people, (Hellenists), and those who practiced pagan Zoroastrianism, which was mainly in what is now, Iran, and was their state religion by 600 BCE. (11)(12)(13) Zoroastrianism had reached Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, Macedonia, Lydia (eastern Turkey), Cyprus, and to the borders of Greece over the reach of the Persian Empire conquering the lands by 500 BCE. Over this, the Greeks had the Persian pagan Zoroastrianism religious belief intermixed with their own pagan and pantheistic God of the underworld and wealth, Hades. Thus, they had pagan dualism in their religion from both sources. (12)(13) Hades was said to be known of as far back as Homer’s mythical Iliad (in print during the 8th century BCE, but the story is said to go back to circa 1260–1180 BCE). However, by the 5th century BCE, due to fear of the name, they called Hades by a new name, Plouton (Pluto), just as the Persians had conquered the lands close to Greece.

Zoroastrianism had also reached the many islands between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea. One island in particular, Patmos, was where John of Patmos wrote the Apocalypse (Revelation). (12) The Apocalypse mirrors the pagan and dualistic end of times story of God fighting an anti-God in Zoroastrianism. However, some scholars believe that this Greco-Roman Zoroastrian apocalyptic theme was used to write about the downfall of Nero Caesar, (Roman Emperor from 54-68 AD), along with the downfall of the Roman Empire at his time, and not a devil. In the story, in this case, it is Nero Caesar that is being called the satan, anti-God, or anti-Christ, where his name equates 666 in Aramaic numerology. Some will try to cite the book of Daniel, claiming that it is linked to John’s apocalypse, and state that the Apocalypse is futuristic over this, but the text of Daniel was actually written after and while things were occurring, and was a metaphor for those occurrences, so it was not a prophecy about the future of a coming messiah. Scholars state that Daniel never existed, and that the author of the cryptic text was writing about the Greek king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). That is confirmed by Judaic and other history. There was a reason why the Orthodox Christians did not want the Apocalypse (Revelation) to be added to the Bible.


The word, satan, is a Hebrew word, a noun from a verb or descriptive title, meaning adversary, nothing more. In the Tanakh, it is always written as “ha-satan or הַשָּׂטָן” (hstn), which means “the adversary”, but in Kings, it is written as “satan or שָׂטָן” (stn), where it means an army. Another way to describe the word, satan, is any adversary, which can be anyone or anything. (1)(4)

Below, I quote Elaine Pagels, PhD, (10) from her book, “The Origin of Satan,” 1995:

In biblical sources, the Hebrew term, “the satan” [ha-satan], describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers, as early as the sixth century B.C.E., occasionally introduced a supernatural character, whom they called “the satan”; what they meant, was any one of the angels sent by God, for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. [sic]

Next, I quote, Dr. Helen Bond, M.Theol. PhD, Univ. of Edinburgh, Scotland:

There’s no kind of prince of darkness; somebody who stands in opposites to God. Throughout most of the texts, there’s no concept, at all, of an evil force.__Quote from “The History Of The Devil.” [sic]

Within the Tanakh, the word, satan, is not used but in very few instances, and I will name a few here. In one place, and one of the most important, is in Job, where “ha-satan” (hstn) was an unnamed angel, who “questions the sincerity of mankind’s loyalty to God, by putting forth the argument, that any given human is only loyal because God gives her or him prosperity”. (1) To this, God agrees, and commands this angel to cause “various misfortunes upon Job, as a test of his faith”. (1) Here, the angel’s name was not Satan. Quoting Job 1:6: Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary [ha-satan], too, came among them.” In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the satan, ha-satan, entices or “moved” David into taking a census. This is peculiar, because the same story that was told 500 years earlier, gave God as doing this deed (remember this). (1) In 1 Samuel 29:4, the Philistines state: “lest he [David] be an adversary against us”, so here, David is the adversary or the satan, “ha-satan”. In 1 Kings 11:14, it states that God “stirred up” an adversary or a satan upon Solomon. Last, satan was used to describe an army, in 1 Kings 5:17-18, where it does not mean a devil nor a singular person.

1 Kings 5:17-18, from The Complete Jewish Bible, with the full correct Hebrew to English translation, and with both scriptures compared:

(17) You knew my father, David, that he could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God, because of the wars which surrounded him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.

(18) And now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, (there is) neither adversary nor evil occurrence.

Above, the adversary is satan, or in Hebrew, שָׂטָן

Job 1:6-9, from The Complete Jewish Bible:

(6) Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.

(7) The Lord said to the Adversary, “Where are you coming from?” And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it.”

(8) Now the Lord said to the Adversary, “Have you paid attention to My servant Job? For there is none like him on earth, a sincere and upright man, God-fearing and shunning evil.”

(9) And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing?”

The original Hebrew does not say Satan, but ha-satan, in Job. Here “the satan” is ha-satan, or Hstn, which, in Hebrew, is: הַשָּׂטָן

The Christian use of a devil, named Satan, an anti-God or fallen angel for that matter, came from the early church’s Hellenistic clergy, such as Paul of Tarsus (5-67 AD), Philo of Alexandria, (25 BC-50 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Origen Adamantius of Alexandria (185-254 AD), and Tertullian of Rome (155-240 AD), whom, like Paul, were Hellenists. (8) Paul taught a Hellenistic Christian view at Antioch, after he was converted, where it flourished. The Hellenism of the Greeks and Romans taught of many pagan Gods, and one in particular was Hades, the Greek God of the underworld. Here, Hades supposedly held souls in a purgatory (a Greek place known as Tartarus) as a punishment, before releasing the soul to go on. The Jews had something only slightly similar to a purgatory, in that, after death, a wicked soul would drift around the Gehenna, (Hebrew Ge Hinnom), for a few days, which is a small valley outside the walls of Jerusalem, (derived from the valley of the son of Hinnom), which had rubbish heaps set alight, where the sinful soul would drift around, and become purified after a few days before going on. (That valley is now built up with homes, see the photo below). The Christians ignore this, and call Gehenna Hell or Purgatory. There is no punishment of hell fire and brimstone in Judaism, nor some anti-God, devil, nor fallen angel creating it at the Gehenna in Judaism. (11) Judaism states that the soul will either dwell in the Sheol, or will go to God. (22) Later, around the second temple period, a belief in resurrection came into being for the Pharisees and the Essenes, who argued against the beliefs of the Sadducees. According to Josephus, who was a Pharisee that defected to the Roman side, thus acquiring their Hellenistic and other teachings, he stated that: “the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people will be reincarnated,” and “pass into other bodies,” while, “the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment.” There was some belief of this in ancient Sumeria. Next, we have Paul, who also claimed to be a Pharisee (8), and states at 1 Corinthians 15:44, when speaking about the resurrection, what “is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Paul then states at 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” In other words, a dead body will not be raised to go to heaven, only the soul. In Acts 24:15, Paul, in his defense to Felix, stated: “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Here, though, by his other writing, he meant the resurrection of the dead’s soul. The difference is, that Paul preached an end of time resurrection, that some Jews did not believe in, and that the book of Jubilees “seems to refer to the resurrection of the soul only, or to a more general idea of an immortal soul.” (5) (22)

When we look at what Josephus wrote, one can see his use of the Greco-Roman Hellenistic influenced punishment by Hades, after death, and he had a not widely held belief in reincarnation, which is generally from the Hindu religion, (see the Persian Hindu Kush region on map), that came to the Levant with the Persians, though reincarnation was also mentioned in ancient Sumerian writing in a hymn to the Goddess Nungal. Next, we have Paul, whose knowledge of Judaism has been questioned by several biblical scholars, especially Rabbis, over his writing, though Paul claimed to be trained in Rabbinical Judaism, that of the Pharisees. In this instance, though, Paul was correct, in that after death, the soul leaves the body and goes on, just as Rabbinical Judaism teaches, and the ancient Sumerians. One can find proof of this at Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Also, there is Genesis 6:3, which states: And the Lord [Adonai] said, My spirit shall not always strive with [live in] man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Thus, as God states, when one dies, the soul, a part of God’s own spirit, leaves the body. The few instances of a resurrection, in the Tanakh, was about a resuscitated body at that time, and not at a later end of time resurrection. (21) Thus, the soul is gone before the body is buried or entombed. It leaves at the time of death.


The “Ge Hinnom” or Gehenna, which is a small valley outside the old walls of Jerusalem, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. It is now built up with homes.

The very mention of an anti-God, fallen angel, or anti-deity goes completely against early Rabbinical Judaism, (doctrine of the Pharisees), which is what Jesus preached a form of, along with his brother, James, and also, Peter. (11) In Isaiah 45:7, God said that he was the one to “form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (2)(3)(11) All the way through the scripture of Tanakh, it is written this way, in that God commands the evil to be done, by a satan, an adversary, which can be anyone or anything, (such as an army), and that man makes his own sin, different than God’s evil, since God gave man free will. Sin is nothing more than breaking the old sacred laws of the land; laws much older than Judaism. The Ten Commandments originated from these older Assyrian and Sumerian laws. (11) To believe in some evil entity, such as an anti-God or anti-deity, who is always trying to counter God or who creates evil and sin, is dualistic, paganistic, polytheistic, and pantheistic. (11) It would also be considered blasphemy, by saying that God did not do or state what he stated he did in Isaiah 45:7. Evidently, the early Christian church leaders did not care about this scripture, nor about going against the doctrine in Tanakh, including Paul, as he admitted to doing anything to gain a convert, even lying or stealing. In Acts, it states that James and Peter made Paul agree to keep the old Jewish and Noahchide law at the Council of Jerusalem, but he broke his word after he left, and still preached and wrote things that were Hellenistic. On top of this, after the early churches clergy invented a Christian devil, (Hades and Typhon renamed Satan), the church used it to its advantage and sold indulgences to the rich, telling them that their soul would not have to stop off in purgatory to be punished, by Satan, once the Pope or clergy signed the indulgence.

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer, on the subject of satan:

Although this well-known Christian doctrine has much in common with the pagan Zoroastrian Persian dualism from which it spawned, it is completely alien to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. In fact, this Christian notion that [the] Satan, in an act of outright defiance, ceased to function as God had intended him to, suggests that God created something imperfect or defective. [sic]

Next, I quote Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple:

The word Satan figures in the Hebrew Bible, but not as a proper name. As a noun it denotes an adversary; as a denominative verb, to oppose or obstruct or be hostile. It is sometimes used in a human sense; in Psalm 109:6, for instance, it suggests the counsel for the prosecution in a court of law. [sic]

Below, is the scripture that states who creates evil:

 Isaiah 45:5-8, KJV

(5) “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

(6) “That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

(7) “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(8) “Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

There are also these other verses that back up Isaiah 45:5-8:

Lamentations 3:37-38, KJV

(37) Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? (38) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

Deuteronomy 30:15, KJV

(15) See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.”

Amos 3:6 KJV

(6) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Exodus 9:14 KJV

(14) For I [God] will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.”

However, there is a bit of New Testament scripture, that those who preach about a mythical devil, named Satan, can’t wiggle out of.

Matthew 16:22-23

(22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” (23) But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Peter was no devil, nor was he a fallen angel, but he was impeding Jesus as an adversary, or a “stumbling block”. Here, the word is most assuredly used correctly, just as it is when spoken by any Jew, whom speaks Hebrew today.

Also, the church clergy tied Luke 10:18 KJV (“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”) Latin Vulgate: (et ait illis videbam Satanan sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem;  And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven). to Isaiah 14:12, because they sounded similar, even though they are about two entirely different circumstances and times, to concoct the lucifer equals satan fallacy. However, it gets deeper, when one actually reads all of Luke, chapter 10, and one can see that this satan or adversary was Jesus and the apostle’s adversary, and this same adversary was the townspeople mentioned in the scripture that were also called “devils” or daemonia from plural of δαίμων in the Latin Vulgate, such as the people in Capernaum, where in Luke 10:15, Jesus states “And thou, Capernaum, [the city and the people] which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.” Latin Vulgate: (et tu Capharnaum usque in caelum exaltata usque ad infernum demergeris;  And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell). The word, satan is used correctly, here, (except for the capitalization), as the town and people were an adversary or stumbling block to the apostles ministering, which Jesus cursed, saying that he would throw them to hell, where he said that he saw that they would fall like lightning, just as the word, satan, was used in Matthew 16:22-23. These verses in Luke, also reminds one of the Hellenist scribe’s, (who wrote Luke), myth of Zeus casting Typhon to Hades, does it not? It seems that those Hellenist Gospel scribes loved capitalizing the word, satan, as if it was a proper name, when it is not.

Yet, the very Christian churches, whom use the Christian Bible that contains the scripture quoted above, believe in a false God, an anti-God, demigod, or fabricated Hellenist fallen angel, that God supposedly has no control over, something imperfect, a mistake that God created, when laying evil to an entity. God creates evil, God does not make mistakes, and God has control of all, as the creator states in Isaiah 45:7. Those very pastors and priests love telling the laity that the Old Testament should not be read, only the New, and one wonders why? Why was the Tanakh even included in the Bible, if one was not meant to read and understand it? What a contradiction!

Next, we have the Christian apologetics, who claim that a physical satan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:1, and that it is an angel’s name. However, that is not so, when we look at the earlier source for this, 2 Samuel 24:1, which was written anywhere from 200 to 500 years earlier. Let us have a look at the two.

1 Chronicles 21:1

(1) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (written 400–250 BC)

2 Samuel 24:1

(1) And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (written 700 BC to 550 BC)

In this instance, God was the satan or the adversary. This is a well known argument by the Christian apologetic, where they try to deny that God was called satan, or a satan, but in fact, he was, as the book of Samuel is much older, and is the source for the Chronicler. Any Rabbi will explain the same thing.

It is said that the belief of the satan, or the adversary becoming a devil, or an anti-God or fallen angel, sprang from Persian Zoroastrianism, and made its way into at least one sect of Judaism, the Essenes, before the time of Christ, and some believe that Jesus and the apostles believed in this, over what is written in the New Testament. However, Jesus was a Pharisee and a Nazarite, who was from the people whom became the “Nazarene sect” of Galilee, after Jesus’ death, and not the Essenes. The scripture of the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Mark, the oldest, which the other Gospel writers copied, was written after Jesus and the apostles were dead, generally about a year after their death, by the early Hellenistic Catholic scribes, whom believed in Greco-Roman and Zoroaster’s dualism, and their pantheistic God, Hades (renamed Pluto). The fallen angel myth came from the story of Zeus defeating Typhon, where Zeus cast Typhon down into Tartarus, (the underworld or purgatory), which is also similar to the story from the apocryphal books of Enoch, that also had its roots in Persian Zoroastrianism. We know from the book of Acts, that both James and Peter still associated and consulted with Rabbis, in Jerusalem, when they were asking about what the Judaic laws should be, for which the newly converted Jews and Gentiles must abide by, in order to be seen as clean and holy. Mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that of the Pharisees such as in Jerusalem, did not believe in the pagan devil, a fallen angel, nor any anti-God, as the Hellenized Essenes had started to believe in. Peter was a Galilean Jew, who founded the church at Antioch, but we know from Acts that he did not agree with what was being taught there by Paul. The Tosaphist, Rabbi Tam, wrote that Peter was “a devout and learned Jew, who dedicated his life to guiding gentiles along the proper path.” The Galileans became known as the fourth sect of Judaism, the fanatical Zealots, which was formed by either Hezekiah during the time of Herod (73 BCE–4 BCE), or it was later developed more by his son, Judas of Galilee, around 6 AD, (18) whom were supposedly a strict form of the Pharisees that were fanatically against the Greco-Roman Hellenists. Those Nazarites (apostles and followers), who became the Nazarene Sect after Jesus’ death, were located within these Galilean borders. (18) The Zealots had a “zeal” for the strictness of Jewish Law, and they were strict to enforce it, along with being against all forms of Hellenism (Greek and Roman theology). (18) James (James the Just), Jesus’ brother, was from the same area, and of the same beliefs. James was titled as the “Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere”. The Gospel of Thomas states that Jesus made his brother, James, the leader of his church, not Peter, though Peter was in Jerusalem with James. To me, this sheds much doubt that Jesus, James, nor Peter believed in the Hellenist thoughts of the Essenes, as it is known that the Nazarites did not believe in many of the things that the Essenes did. Some state that John the Baptist, who taught Jesus, was an Essene, (20) but according to several scholars, that has not been proven, and that he was most likely a Pharisee who believed in ancient baptism, or cleansing by water. (19) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “the angel Gabriel announced John’s birth to Zacharias [his father] while the priest stood at the altar offering incense, and told him that this child would be a Nazarite for life.” (20) Thus, John the Baptist upheld and taught the doctrine of the Nazarites. At Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus states that he was a Pharisee, taught the doctrine of the Pharisees, and stated that not one jot or tittle should be changed in the Jewish law. Since it was John the Baptist who taught Jesus, one can make a conclusion from this.

Christian literalists go on to say that satan was the serpent in the tree of knowledge in Eden. This idea comes from the Jewish pseudepigraphic and apocryphal books titled 1st and 2nd Enoch, first written around 200-300 BC, but some of it later,  (which are not biblical canon to either the Jews nor most Christians, and are tied to Persian Zoroastrianism), and the book of Genesis. Judaism considers Enoch a work of fiction or bogus, and the Torah’s books, such as Genesis, are all metaphorical and allegorical, thus, they can not be taken literally. The final version of the Torah was written by the Jews, to cover up their earlier practice of pantheism and polytheism, after or during their captivity at Babylon. Before their captivity, during their first twelve kings, many worshiped more than one God, and believed in the pantheon of ancient Mesopotamia that had spread to Canaan. Afterwards, they declared El or Elil (Ellil in some writing) to be their National God, becoming monotheistic. Here, the God, Enlil, became the Canaanite God, Ellil or Elil, (both meaning the God of the air), and the Jewish God, El of the Elohim (6)(7)(9), where they later merged the stories of the Gods Anu, Enlil and Enki into one. The serpent of Genesis is not found in the original Sumerian creation story, as it was Enlil’s half-brother, the God Enki, (the God of wisdom and the waters, not of the underworld), who had started to educate man, after he and his sister, Ninhursag (Belit-ili), the womb Goddess, (14) had created man and woman on Enlil’s orders. The snake has always been an ancient symbol for knowledge, and it is metaphorically placed into the tree to show that it is the tree of knowledge, in place of Enki. Thus, the books of Enoch are shown to be what they are, completely fictional and nonfactual, with an unknown author, which is why they are in the apocrypha! Another instance of this, was that Enlil sent the plagues and the flood, and Enki told Utnapishtim / Ziusudra / Atrahasis or Atra-Hasis to build an ark to save the humans. Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, later, became the Noah of the Jews. A good bit of the metaphorical Torah can be found in the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian epics and stories, though the Jews changed them around, and renamed the characters to Jewish names, to suit their religion.

There was a Mesopotamian God of the underworld, supposedly fathered by Enlil, named Nergal; syncretised with the God Birtum, (Birtu, Birdu, the same God as Nergal). However, Nergal is not similar to any anti-God, nor a devil, as a punisher of wicked souls. Birtum had a consort, the Goddess Nungal (Queen of the Ekur), (23) and of the underworld, who held the tablet of life and judged the wicked. Ekur means “mountain house of the Gods” similar to Greek Mythology. Nergal was worshiped in some parts of Mesopotamia. Also, this Gods popularity seems to have died out and had never spread that far, as his stories were merged with the God, Ninurta. Both of these Gods were also known as the God of War and destruction, and Nergal was associated with the planet, Mars. They had more in common with Enlil. Thus, as the ancient religions spread west, Nergal/Ninurta, later become the Greek God, Mars, the God of war. The Goddess, Nungal, may have ended up becoming the root of the Greek God, Hades. However, other minor God’s stories were intermixed with Nungals. Curiously, Enlil supposedly fathered another God, the Baal of Tyre named Melqart, who Jezebel worshiped. Most likely, Melqart was a God created by merging the tales of Anu, Enlil, Enki, and the other Gods, the same as the Jews had done with Anu, Enlil, and Enki. The worship of Melqart, was what brought about the war that led the Jews to declaring a National God, El or Elil, (Enlil). Enlil was the same God who brought war and destruction to Ur, over worshiping false idols, and who Abraham swore his allegiance to in Mesopotamia. The Babylonians had created the same type of merged God, with their God, Marduk, who they proclaimed was their National God. It is also said that Zoroaster did the same, by combining or merging all the ancient Persian Gods into two, thus creating his dualistic Gods named “Ahura Mazda” and “Angra Mainyu or Ahriman.” Later, the Persians claimed that their enemies, such as in war, were Ahriman or “devil” worshipers in their propaganda. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

From this use of the word, “satan”, as an anti-God, one can date the authorship of the New Testament books to be written after Jesus and the apostles were dead, somewhere around 70 AD to 170 AD, after the second temple fell, when the new Christian church’s Hellenistic writers would have invented an anti-God, by changing the name of Hades or Pluto into Satan, and using Zeus defeating Typhon and casting him to Tartarus, for the story of a fallen angel. This supported the Persian Zoroastrian myth of an anti-God, and later, a devil. Biblical theory states that this Satan was created to convert the Greek and Roman pagan polytheists to Christianity, who believed in Hades, along with the Persian Zoroastrians. Here, it followed the story of the Persian Magi, Zoroaster, who suggests the dualistic belief that there are two Gods, one evil and one good, whom are always fighting. (12)  Zoroastrianism also spoke of a tale similar to the apocalypse, with two God fighting at the end of time. (11)(12) The early Catholic church also used this mythical Satan as a scare tactic, to provoke people into converting, as now they had a supernatural villain who would punish the convert’s soul, badly, for an eternity in the afterlife, if they did not follow the new church and its dogma. Worse, the Catholic church’s pope and clergy sold indulgences, which the rich purchased, that supposedly gave them a pass on punishment, or bought a deceased ones freedom through or from the mythical pagan purgatory, where this pagan Satan (Hades or Pluto) supposedly punished the sinners, before letting the soul go on. They made much money from this, and it is the primary reason for Luther’s ninety-five theses. This, then, developed into Protestantism, which led to the Enlightenment, and the revolutions in Europe and the United States.

A sample of Christian Americans were polled by Barna on their Christian belief. Many still affirmed that God is the all-powerful Creator, but a mere 17 percent of the Catholics, 18 percent Methodists, 20 percent Episcopalians, 21 percent Lutherans, and 22 percent of the Presbyterians, told Barna, that they thought Satan was real.” (16) That poll was in 2001.

Also, from another poll: “The notion that Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can influence people’s lives, is regarded as hogwash by most Americans. Only one-quarter (27%) strongly believes that Satan is real, while a majority argues that he is merely a symbol of evil. Mormons are the group most likely to accept the reality of Satan’s existence (59%) while Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists are the least likely (just one-fifth). (17)

The New Testament tells us where sin and evil originate, and it is not some anti-God or fallen angel. We can find the truth of the matter in both Mark and Matthew below.

Mark 7:21-23 KJV

(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, (22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: (23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Matthew 15:18 KJV

(18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. (19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

There is an old saying of mine that goes along with the above two pieces of scripture, and that is: “out of heart, out of mind”. Sin is created by man alone, within his mind, by his ego, vanity, greed, hate, bigotry, want, and jealousy. When man acts upon this, he is his own satan. A sinner is nothing but a criminal who has broken the ancient laws (the Commandments) listed within the Volume of Sacred Law.

Last, I end with a famous quote by Gerald Messandé: “The framework of the three monotheisms [Essene Judaism, Christianity, Islam] had been erected. The Devil’s birth certificate was filled out by an Iranian prophet”.


  1. Satan at New World Encyclopedia
  2. Isaiah chap. 45, at the Bible Hub
  3. Isaiah chap. 45, at The Complete Jewish Bible
  4. Satan at Encyclopedia Britannica
  5. Resurrection at Wikipedia
  6. Enlil at Wikipedia
  7. Enlil at New World Encyclopedia
  8. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Paul was a hellenist, though he claimed to be a Pharisee.
  9. “Enlil appears frequently in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Canaanite, and other Mesopotamian clay and stone tablets. His name was sometimes rendered as Ellil in later Akkadian, Hittite, and Canaanite literature.” See Here.
  10. Elaine Pagels née Hiesey, born Palo Alto, California, February 13, 1943, is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She is the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship. She received her PhD in religion from Harvard University, in 1970.
  11. Rabbi Tovia Singer, from Outreach Judaism, on who satan is.
  12. Breyan Rennie: Zoroastrianism: The Iranian Roots of Christianity? Dept. of Religion, Westminster College, New Wilimington, PA., 2007
  13. Mary Boyce: A History of Zoroastrianism vol III, 1985.
  14. Ninhursag, also spelled Ninhursaga, (Sumerian) Akkadian Belit-ili. Encyclopedia Britannica.
  15. The Story of Atrahasis, Grand Valley State University.
  16. Barna Poll on U.S. Religious Belief—2001, Uwe Siemon-Netta, UPI. Retrieved from May 21, 2007.
  17. Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination, June 25, 2001
  18. Zealot, at the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  19. Marshall, I. H.; Millard, A. R.; Packer, J. I. (eds.). “John the Baptist”. New Bible Dictionary (Third ed.). IVP reference collection. ISBN 0-85110-636-6
  20. John the Baptist, at the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  21. See 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37, and 2 Kings 13:21.
  22. “Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld [Sheol] and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30). Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii.). In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26).” and farther in the text concerning later thoughts of resurrection, “By means of the “dew of resurrection” (see Dew) the dead will be aroused from their sleep (Yer. Ber. v. 9b; Ta’an. i. 63d, with reference to Isa. xxvi. 19; Ḥag. 12b. with reference to Ps. lxviii. 10 [A. V. 9]). As to the question, Who will be raised from death? the answers given vary greatly in rabbinical literature. According to R. Simai (Sifre, Deut. 306) and R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (Gen. R. xiii. 4; comp. Lev. R. xiii. 3), resurrection awaits only the Israelites; according to R. Abbahu, only the just (Ta’an. 7a); some mention especially the martyrs (Yalḳ. ii. 431, after Tanḥuma). R. Abbahu and R. Eleazar confine resurrection to those that die in the Holy Land; others extend it to such as die outside of Palestine (Ket. 111a). According to R. Jonathan (Pirḳe R. El. xxxiv.), the resurrection will be universal, but after judgment the wicked will die a second death and forever, whereas the just will be granted life everlasting (comp. Yalḳ. ii. 428, 499). The same difference of view prevails also among the New Testament writers; at times only “the resurrection of the just” is spoken of (Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35); at other times “the resurrection of the dead” in general is mentioned (John v. 29; Acts xxiv. 15; Rev. xx. 45).”
  23. Nungal. The Goddess Nungal held the tablet of life, and was the queen of the mountain house (Ekur) that the Gods resided on. She was also the consort of Birtum , and the Goddess of the underworld. She dealt punishment to the wicked, (after watching for truth and lie). The punishment was shame from the other dead, to where the wicked soul was shunned by the others. It is possible that this Goddess was the root of the Greek God, Hades, where they combined Nergal, Birdu, Namtar, Ninazu, and Nungal into one God. From a hymn to Nungal: “Mercy and compassion are mine. I frighten no one. I keep an eye upon the black-headed people: they are under my surveillance. I hold the tablet of life in my hand and I register the just ones on it. The evildoers cannot escape my arm; I learn their deeds. All countries look to me as to their divine mother. I temper severe punishments; I am a compassionate mother. I cool down even the angriest heart, sprinkling it with cool water. I calm down the wounded heart; I snatch men from the jaws of destruction. My house is built on compassion; I am a life-giving (?) lady. Its shadow is like that of a cypress tree growing in a pure place. Birtum the very strong, my spouse, resides there with me.” Here, she has some qualities of Hades, but Hades was not know for being forgiving or having any mercy. Also, the Nungal hymn mentions reincarnation for those who are not sinners, which is different from Greco-Roman mythology. Last, one must also remember that Nungal, along with the other deities mentioned, were subordinate to Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag , and Anu. They were minor deities, and were fathered by the elder ruling King/Gods and Queen/Goddesses, mainly Enlil and Ninlil. This being said, there was no insubordinate anti-God.


Dualistic: Originating from the word, dualism, which means the belief in two Gods, that are always acting counter to each other; a God and an anti-God. Zoroastrianism is considered dualistic.

Paganistic: The belief of paganism.

Polytheistic: The belief in more than one God.

Pantheistic: The belief in a pantheon of Gods, such as the Greek and Sumerian pantheons.

Hellenism: The beliefs and practices of the people who lived under the influence of ancient Greek culture during the Hellenistic period and the Roman Empire (c. 300 BCE to 30 BCE). These beliefs were intermixed with some Jewish sects, and became known as Hellenistic Judaism, thus, ancient Greek religious dogma was intermixed with Judaism, such as the stories from pantheism and polytheism. The Hellenists are responsible for the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period.


What is Gnosticism? It is defined as one who studies or has “knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge”.

Jesus of the Nazarene, also known as Jesus Christ, a Jew, was gnostic, which means that he was educated in Judaic esoteric mystical knowledge. He had learned the ancient religious knowledge of Judaism, from the Nazarene sect, where he grew up. The Nazerenes were similar, in a few ways, to the Essene sect. Jesus supposedly taught this deeper religious knowledge to Thomas. Jesus was also most likely educated in the ancient religion of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Akkadians, the Sumerians, and the Egyptians. His education in Judaism, from the Nazarene, would surely include Kabbalah, that supposedly dates to Eden, according to the Sefer Raziel HaMalakh. Kabbalah is studied by Rabbinical Judaism.

The early Roman church took exception to the Gnostic works, because they disproved much of the tale that they had voted on, at the first Council of Nicaea, to feed to the congregation. They argued on including the Gospel of Thomas, after this, but it was stopped by those like Athanasius of Alexandria. Athanasius was responsible for the trinity, denying Jesus’ siblings, the first burning of Holy books, and the first exiles and murders of those who held the books that he condemned. Luckily, some were hidden away, and they turned up in 1945. They are known as the Nag Hammadi Library.

Probably, one of the most important books, is the Gospel of Thomas, which is not really a gospel, but a collection of parables, supposedly spoken by Jesus. Orthodoxy tried to deny this book, and claim it was a forgery from the 2nd or 3rd century AD, however: “Scholars currently involved in Thomas studies now largely reject that view, though such arguments will still be heard from orthodox apologists and are encountered in some of the earlier publications about Thomas”(1). Accordingly, what is written in this gospel matches some of what is alluded to in the Gospel of John.

Other important books are the The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene, though much is missing due to decay and damage, and the The Sophia of Jesus Christ.

Last, the Kabbalah, and it’s book known as the Zohar, which means the book of light, contains much that matches the gnostic gospels, and that of other ancient religions, such as Hinduism, and early Buddhism. The Zohar is a large work, written in Hebrew, and is contained in twenty three volumes, though it has been translated into a five volume English set. In its Hebrew form, many have studied it, and have written condensed books on the subject, such as The Zohar: Bereshith to Lekh Lekha, by Nurho de Manhar, 1900–1914. This is a very important book, about what is hidden away in the Torah, especially Genesis. One will find that the Torah, the first five books of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, are all allegory, written after the 12th Jewish king, Ahab, and his son and predecessor, who reigned from 740-717 BC, to hide their early practice of polytheism. Genesis is believed to be written somewhere around 597 to 539 BC, during their time at Babylon, about 250 years later. The Zohar shines light on this, and says that the first three words of Genesis are translated incorrectly, and that they mean that in the beginning, God, the creator, created another God, who then created man. That explains the Jews use of the Elohim, which is generally plural, as the God(s) in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden. What the Torah says, and what it actually means, are entirely two different things. The true meaning is hidden behind a veil, in allegory. The Zohar is similar.

It is theorized that the Jews, while in captivity at Babylon, heard the Babylonian tales of creation, which originated from the Akkadians, and theirs from the earlier Sumerians. This original story gives two major Gods, Enki and Enlil (El of the Elohim, and Elil of the Canaanites), and their sister, the Goddess Ninhursag. Enki, and his sister, Ninhursag, supposedly created man, from another Gods blood, and the clay of the earth, which scholars say was something already here, and made seven breeding pairs, at Enlil’s order, to be used to dredge the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers. However, Enlil later exiled the new humans from Edin (Eden), for being educated by Enki. Later, Enlil sent the plagues and the flood. Enki finally steps in, before the flood, and has Atrahasis to build an ark, which saves humanity, to Enlil’s fury and consternation. The Torah combines these two Gods throughout it, and thus, God always seems to contradict himself.


  1. Gospel of Thomas, Gnostic Society Library

About the article: Are the Freemasons even MORE powerful than anyone thought? Daily Mail, UK

What a pompous and non-factual article. Below, I will give some quotes from this article, and give my retort about what was written. Below is the 2nd paragraph written.

But what’s inspired endless rumour and speculation is how the influence of this shadowy organisation reaches to the very heart of the Establishment — to senior politicians, high-ranking military men, diplomats and spies, chief constables and scientists. [sic]

Well, where to start? I guess it does not matter, that those they are speaking of, are also members of several churches, and other societies. I mean, if you’re claiming that Freemasonry reaches to the very heart of the “establishment”, then it must also be reaching into the churches and other societies as well. Guy Walters, the articles author, must be insinuating guilt by association here.

The newly released list of two million names includes at least five kings (most recently Edward VII, Edward VIII and George VI), the present Duke of Kent, statesmen Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener, military genius the Duke of Wellington, authors Rudyard Kipling and Arthur Conan Doyle, England manager Sir Alf Ramsey, the explorer Ernest Shackleton, the scientist who discovered penicillin, Sir Alexander Fleming — and flamboyant playwright Oscar Wilde. [sic]

That is just a few of our noble and famous members, and we are proud of them all, except those who have been expelled for crimes. Everyone likes to talk down about Freemasons, but it was a Freemason who was responsible for saving millions of lives since his time on earth, and that was Sir Alexander Fleming. Maybe, when you are sick, and sitting at your physicians office, or in the ER, you will refuse to be treated with antibiotics, since you do not trust and dislike a Freemason. After all, if you can’t trust a Freemason, you can’t trust the medicine he invented, can you? I mean, guilt by association and all.

The very mention of the Freemasonry — one of the world’s oldest and biggest non-religious organisations — is guaranteed to prompt a rash of contradictory reactions. Defenders rightly point to its tradition of charity fund-raising and official websites promote it as an ‘enjoyable hobby’. [sic]

I have to credit them on this quote, as they are one of the few to tell the truth, in that Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for one. Freemasonry is secular, after all. I keep my hobby and my religion separate.

But do such close friendships lead to too much power being vested in individuals who favour fellow Masons in everything from promotions to business deals? Membership lists are notoriously hard to get hold of, making it difficult to detect corruption. [sic]

There is no proof that any nepotism occurs, due to one being a Freemason, and Guy Walters, the author, very well knows this. Rumor, gossip, and conspiracy theory are nowhere near being factual. As a matter of fact, doing so can get you suspended or expelled from the fraternity. We do have Masonic Laws, and a Constitution, with the rules. If you break one, such as not obeying the law of the land, you can be booted out of the fraternity faster than it took to join it.

Indeed, the website of the United Grand Lodge of England recommends it for ‘making new friends and acquaintances’. [sic]

This is known as straw pulling, and it seems that Guy is good at it. I also make new friends and acquaintances at work, church, the bank, the grocery store, at parties, etc. Guy must be really lonely, if he thinks that Freemasonry is the only way to meet someone.

But do such close friendships lead to too much power being vested in individuals who favour fellow Masons in everything from promotions to business deals? Membership lists are notoriously hard to get hold of, making it difficult to detect corruption.Others believe the Freemasons, with their arcane ceremonies, secret handshakes, lambskin aprons, embroidered sashes and gold rings, and their ornate symbols — the square, the compass — are more the stuff of pantomime. [sic]

First, Guy, it is not good form to start a sentence, much less a paragraph, with but.

Membership lists have been hard to view, in Europe, since WWII, because Hitler and his axis of evil had about 500,000 Freemasons arrested, placed into concentration camps, as political dissidents, and murdered, right beside the Jews. Many European Lodges are just now allowing the membership to be known, and many members are just now starting to wear a ring, or some form of identification, showing them to be a Freemason, over it.

Others believe the Freemasons, with their arcane ceremonies, secret handshakes, lambskin aprons, embroidered sashes and gold rings, and their ornate symbols — the square, the compass — are more the stuff of pantomime. [sic]

I would say that is about right, but we do learn a good moral lesson over that “pantomime”.

There aren’t many ‘private societies’, after all, whose members swear an oath blindfolded, bare-chested, with nooses around their necks and a dagger to the heart — and with the left trouser leg rolled up. [sic]

Really? That sure isn’t so in the US, as there are a ton of societies that have similar rituals.

Working from the complete English Masonic membership records dating from 1751 to 1921, genealogical website Ancestry has established that at least five people associated with the official inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic were Freemasons. It argues this may have influenced the findings, which exonerated most of the key figures involved. [sic]

More straw pulling and conspiracy claptrap. To think that Freemasons covered up anything, about the Titanic, is pure insanity. If nothing else, they would have done their level best to find out what really did happen, and not allow any criminal(s) to get away.

It was also claimed yesterday that one of the most notorious murderers in British history may also have been a Mason. [sic]

According to a new book by Bruce Robinson, the writer of the cult film Withnail & I, none other than Jack the Ripper was a Freemason. It begs the question whether his identity was covered up, allowing him to carry on with his murderous campaign in which five women died. [sic]

I find that funny, when nobody in our history has figured out who the murderer was. Thus, if the man is unknown, how can you, Guy, claim that he was a Freemason, or how can any book for that matter. Below, Guy, is a review of the book, from the Irish Times.

“Robinson’s achievement isn’t in revealing the Ripper but in writing the most involving, audacious, and wonderfully bonkers book of the year.” [sic] (Irish Times)

Did you catch that Guy? “Robinson’s achievement isn’t in revealing the Ripper”.

The websites of modern-day Masonic lodges, some of which pay at least lip-service to being less secretive, talk virtuously of how it is frowned upon for a member to use his Masonic status for a career leg-up. [sic]

But down the centuries, their clandestine activities have — however unfairly — convinced many that as a fraternity they were collectively up to no good. [sic]

The first paragraph is correct, in that it is against Masonic law, because it is against the public common laws on nepotism. Freemasonry does not do this, and you can be expelled over it.

Next, the second paragraph reminds me of the accusations made by Pope Clement XII , when he listed common gossip as his source for proof, to write the In eminenti apostolatus specula, the first Papal Bull against Freemasonry, in April 1738.

There have been glimpses of serious wrongdoing. The late Yorkshire architect and Freemason John Poulson was jailed for seven years after being found guilty in 1974 of bribing public figures to win contracts. [sic]

The judge called Poulson an ‘incalculably evil man’ and his conviction precipitated the 1972 resignation of Conservative Home Secretary Reginald Maudling, who had been a director of Poulson’s firm. [sic]

Now, regarding Poulson. This, again, is tarring the Freemasons, because of one bad egg. If you believe in guilt by association, then due to one priest being a pedophile, the entire Catholic clergy must be sure to be pedophiles, according to your logic. Or, maybe when one pastor gets sentenced to jail for not paying his taxes, by conducting a scam, all the other pastors in the world are guilty too? What about all the others involved, who were not Freemasons? What about all the non-Freemasons in the UK governments, who have been found guilty of breaking the law, over hundreds of years?

I hate to say this, but Freemasonry has bad eggs that other Freemasons call fellows, instead of brothers. When they were voted in, they were either not that way, or they hid it well. To expel them, the Lodge must wait until they break the law, either Masonic or public. What a Mason does outside of lodge, in business or anything else, is upon him and him alone. The talk of business, politics, or religion, is strictly banned in regular Freemasonry, within the Lodge. One has the right, by law, to talk, do business, attend whatever church, and even be a politician, freely, outside of Lodge. Because one has been found guilty of a crime, does not mean that the rest of the membership is guilty. If so, one might as well to wait for the Sabbath, and arrest every member of every church, as I can assure you, they have bad eggs in their baskets too, and many have been convicted of crimes.

While the Freemasons insist their private meetings do not mask anything nefarious, that was not universally so. In the late 18th century, for example, a lodge in Brentford was accused of plotting to kill George III. The conspiracy did nothing to deter his two sons, George IV and William IV, from becoming Masons. [sic]

That is correct, it was an accusation, but not proven to be factual, and guess what, King George III was mentally ill. According to the Jane Austen site (1): “George III obstinately tried to keep Great Britain at war with the rebels in America, despite the opinions of his own ministers”. It also said that: “Recently, owing to studies showing high levels of the poison arsenic in King George’s hair, arsenic is also thought to be a possible cause of King George’s insanity and health problems. After a final relapse in 1810, George’s eldest son, George, Prince of Wales ruled as Prince Regent. Upon George’s death, the Prince of Wales succeeded his father as George IV.”

So, instead of some Masonic conspiracy, someone that was living or working with the King was poisoning him. I do not believe that his sons would have became Freemasons, if the  Freemasons were guilty of trying to kill him.

That may well be so, but it does not answer the question that many have asked about their activities for nearly three centuries: who benefits from whatever it is they do? The Masons themselves or is it society at large? [sic]

The Freemasons do not deny that much of their generosity is allocated to themselves and their dependants, often in the forms of healthcare and education. But there is nothing wrong in creating a society for mutual benefit. [sic]

And good causes benefit. Each year they give £1 million to the Royal College of Surgeons ‘for the betterment of mankind’. Most members are surely honest, decent and altruistic. [sic]

But it is hardly surprising, given the closed way members go about their business, that cynics maintain some Masons’ primary ambition is to give each other favours and backhanders, turn blind eyes, wave through promotions, sign contracts and bestow all manner of benefits not available to others. [sic]

Both Freemasons and the public benefits by the moral lessons taught in Freemasonry. Morality and charity is what it is all about. I also wonder how many anti-masons have taken of the charity that Freemasonry gives yearly?

If a Freemason was caught doing what the last paragraph says, and it is reported to the Lodge, the Mason would be called upon the carpet for charges against him, and if found guilty, he would be expelled from the fraternity.

Now, below is about their side article on Kenneth Noye.

Kenneth Noye, who is serving a life sentence for the ‘road rage’ murder of Stephen Cameron in 1996, was once dubbed Britain’s ‘most infamous villain’. [sic]

He also happens to have been a Freemason. [sic]

Yes, and he should have never been voted into Freemasonry, if the membership had known his background. All it takes is one blackball, and you’re out the door.

Noye managed to avoid being charged, partly because he was a police informer, but also perhaps because he had decided to join a Hammersmith-based lodge of the Freemasons that same year. [sic]

So, Guy, you’re saying that he got out of being charged, before he was ever made a Freemason, but that the Freemasons were who helped him, because he had decided to join them? You’re joking, correct? You do not think that a police informer would have been enough to keep him from being charged? They do this all the time in the US. It is paying Peter, to arrest Paul.

His Masonic status could not spare him from a 14-year jail sentence for that crime. He was finally kicked out of the Free-masons — but not until three years after his conviction. [sic]

Yes, he was expelled. It does take some time from being charged to being found guilty. Then, someone must bring charges in the Lodge. Next, those charges must be overheard, a vote cast, before one can be expelled. However, he was most certainly expelled.


(1) Jane Austen website


About the CBS News’ article: 9 things you didn’t know about Freemasonry .

On CBS News’ website, they have an article named ‘9 things you didn’t know about Freemasonry’, with a so-called expert by the name of Margaret Jacob PhD, who has no idea about what she is speaking about concerning Freemasonry, and by being female, she can not be a member of any regular Lodge who would know the true history and facts of the fraternity, as women can not be made regular Freemasons. Her PhD in history does not matter one whit, when it comes to knowing the facts about regular Freemasonry, as only a Freemason can know what is actually correct. Women have their own order, within regular Freemasonry, which is known as the Eastern Star within the US, but even they do not know anything about Freemasonry. There are no regular Lodges who will make a woman a Freemason. Any that do, are known as irregular and clandestine Lodges, and they practice things that regular Freemasonry has never practiced. Regular Freemasons are banned from attending an irregular Lodge’s meetings on the threat of expulsion. These irregular Lodges fall under the Grand Orient of France and those in the Rite of Memphis-Misraim. The regular and irregular Lodges are almost completely different, especially in their constitution and bylaws. Below is CBS’s very first topic and their expert is dead wrong.

1. When meeting, Masons do not discuss religion or politics.

“There are certain subjects which are prevented or we simply proscribe from discussing within the lodge,” Piers Vaughan, master of St. John’s Lodge #1 in New York, told Mo Rocca. “And religion is one. Politics is another.”

One of the world’s leading experts on Freemasonry confirms.

“Do they discuss forms of politics and events that have happened? Yes, they do,” said UCLA history professor Margaret Jacob. “Do they say, ‘Well, I’m a Democrat and therefore I think …’ Or, ‘I’m a Republican … ‘ No, I don’t think they do that.”

Brother Piers Vaughan is correct, as he is a member and the Worshipful Master of a regular Lodge. He would most definitely know the facts. No matter what Mrs. Jacob claims, the discussion of business, religion, and politics are banned in regular Freemasonry. A Freemason can be suspended or expelled over doing so.

Next, we have Mrs. Jacob’s view on religion and Freemasonry.

2. Freemasonry is not a religion.

“Freemasonry has the look of a religion,” said Jacob. “You think of religion as ritual, there’s also this ritual element. But there are no priests, there are no ministers, there are no rabbis, there’s no system of clergy of any sort. Everybody’s their own thinker.”

Well, again, she is semi-incorrect. The Lodge has the Bible (known as the Volume of Sacred Law) of the candidates chosen religion at the altar, where you swear your solemn oath and obligation to God, who is known as the Great Architect of the Universe to Freemasons, which is an old medieval Christian name for God. A Christian uses the KJV Bible, a Jew the Tanakh, and a Muslin the Quran. That is it’s only use, as if you did not believe in God then the oath would not be any good. Freemasonry is not about practicing religion, nor has it ever been. It uses the tale of King Solomon’s Temple being built, in an allegorical (fictional) ritual (play), with the candidate being the main character of the play, to give the candidate a moral lesson. There are three rituals and lessons total. A ritual is defined as something that is performed the same way every time, such as a play at a theater. Freemasonry uses three allegorical plays, that are put on the same, each time, but that does not make them religion.

Freemasonry does not have a sermon, nor do they give the Eucharist, Mass, or Holy Communion. There is no offer of baptism, and the fraternity has no creed or religious dogma. There is no offer of salvation. Freemasonry is secular. The fraternity tells no member how to worship, nor which religion to worship with, and a member’s religion is private to him. The candidate is told at the beginning that Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for one. Freemasonry can not save you, but only help to make you a better man and a moral person. It teaches religious tolerance and is anti-bigotry. The closest thing to being religious is a prayer during Lodge, and a graveside prayer ceremony for a members death, if it is requested, just as it is done in other fraternities, labor unions, and many governments. Freemasonry is the oldest labor union on earth, after all, which was turned into a fraternal organization in 1717.

Now, we move on to topic number three, and Mrs. Jacob, again.

3. The Catholic Church condemns Freemasonry.

Jacob said the initial response to Freemasonry in continental Europe, particularly in Catholic Europe, was suspicion from seeing “all these men [from] different neighborhoods, different professions meeting in the cafe, breaking bread together, doing rituals, what could this be? Political conspiracy or religion.”

In 1738 the Catholic Church condemned Freemasonry, and has since issued about 20 decrees — directly or indirectly — against the fraternity. In 1983 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) re-affirmed this position.

That is not quite so, and again, Mrs. Jacobs is incorrect. When Pope, Clement XII, condemned Freemasonry with his Papal Bull, the in eminenti apostolatus specula, on April 28th, 1738, it was over Freemasonry’s members backing the reformation, along with those of differing religions meeting together. The bull was triggered by a Frenchman named Andrew Michael Ramsay, who spun a yarn to some French noblemen, and claimed that Freemasonry originated from the Knights Templar to get them to join. The Templars had been nonexistent for 300 years when Ramsay spun his tall tale. It was a complete fabrication, but it is how the history of the knights came into the Scottish Rite. At the time, the French Freemasons had stated that they were for democracy, liberty, freedom of religion and speech, were for education of the masses, and were against the divine right of kings. The Pope and the church was zealously against every one of these ideas, and he was afraid that Freemasonry would reveal some much hidden truths about the church. The Pope made it clear, in the Bull, that he was basing his edict on pure rumor and speculation, and that he did not care whether any accusation against Freemasonry was false. Below, I quote the Pope’s own words from the bull.

Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear, that certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together, according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together. But it is in the nature of crime to betray itself and to show itself by its attendant clamor. Thus these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light. Indeed, this rumor has grown to such proportions that in several countries these societies have been forbidden by the civil authorities as being against the public security, and for some time past have appeared to be prudently eliminated.

Therefore, bearing in mind the great harm which is often caused by such Societies or Conventicles not only to the peace of the temporal state but also to the well-being of souls, and realizing that they do not hold by either civil or canonical sanctions; and since We are taught by the divine word that it is the part of faithful servant and of the master of the Lord’s household to watch day and night lest such men as these break into the household like thieves, and like foxes seek to destroy the vineyard; in fact, to prevent the hearts of the simple being perverted, and the innocent secretly wounded by their arrows, and to block that broad road which could be opened to the uncorrected commission of sin and for the other just and reasonable motives known to Us; We therefore, having taken counsel of some of Our Venerable Brothers among the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and also of Our own accord and with certain knowledge and mature deliberations, with the plenitude of the Apostolic power do hereby determine and have decreed that these same Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations, or Conventicles of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or whatever other name they may go by, are to be condemned and prohibited, and by Our present Constitution, valid for ever, We do condemn and prohibit them.

Note that the Pope stated: “Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear;” clearly stating that he did not care for fact and truth by listening to gossip, and he mentions “such societies,” when not many societies even existed at the time, and many of the ones before that were started by the church itself. He then states that “but it is in the nature of crime to betray itself and to show itself by its attendant clamor;” claiming that Freemasonry had committed a crime without one drop of supporting factual evidence, only rumor. Last, the Pope shows himself to be what he is at his core, when he said: “these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted,” and finally his big lie for the finale: “if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light.” So, because of rumor and suspicion, Freemasonry was found guilty of being perverted and depraved, along with hating the very thing that the fraternity sought, light. Hating the light meant standing up for the reformation. Some Pope wasn’t he? The prejudiced and bigoted Pope Clement XII, then tried to have the Freemasons rounded up and tried before an Inquisition. However, by this time, the European heads of state were practically ignoring the Pope and the Catholic church. The clergy had made their own rotten bed and were having to lie in it. The church had already caused its own downfall, by trying to control every aspect of the European’s lives, and by the atrocities that the church had committed against the European people, such as the inquisitions (where multitudes were murdered by the church), along with most every monarchy being in bed with the church. The people had enough throughout many of the countries of Europe, and the church was drowning in its own muck and corruption. The reformation stirred rebellion, and three revolutions, starting with Britain, then the US, and finally France, caused the church to lose control of all three. Now, after the Italian Revolution, the Vatican is the smallest country in existence; a very small speck on the globe.

Now, we go to topic six where Mrs. Jacob is wrong, yet again.

6. There are NO secret Masonic symbols on the U.S. dollar bill.

The back of the dollar bill features an incomplete pyramid with an eye on top of it. Many people — including some Freemasons — say it’s a Masonic symbol, but that’s not the case. UCLA’s Margaret Jacob says these symbols have been used by many different groups, including Masons, throughout history.

“I’m sure there are a lot of Freemasons who want to believe [that they’re Masonic symbols] and who will tell it to you, because it makes the Lodges seem important,” Jacob said. “I mean, if you have a symbol on the dollar bill, that’s a big deal!”

Brent Morris said there are two types of people who want to promote the idea that the symbols are Masonic: “The pro-Masons and the anti-Masons — and that pretty well covers the universe.

“The Eye of God is a common icon for God looking over the affairs of man,” Morris said. “It’s an icon that appears in cultures across the centuries. The uncompleted pyramid [which also appeared on several Colonial notes issued by the states] represented that our country was not yet completed, that we were continuing to grow.”

Mrs. Jacob states that “I’m sure there are a lot of Freemasons who want to believe [they’re Masonic symbols] and who will tell it to you, because it makes the Lodges seem important,”and “I mean, if you have a symbol on the dollar bill, that’s a big deal!”. There is no truth to that statement whatsoever, and we Freemasons actually chortle at those who think that about the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States, which is on the back of the one dollar bill. The only Freemasons that I’ve heard handle that talk, were new Master Masons who were asking if it was true. That conspiracy theory has been around since the bills design, due to Franklin Delano Roosevelt being a Freemason, and every member knows that it is utter hogwash and a conspiracy theory nutter’s mumbo jumbo. The Great Seal was designed by Charles Thompson, a non-mason, using the ideas of all three seal committees, and this seal was finalized in 1782. The design proposed by the only Mason who was on the first committee, was by Benjamin Franklin, which proposed a scene from the Book of Exodus showing Moses, which was rejected, though the Eye of Providence made it onto the final seal. The accepted design had been used on the fifty dollar colonial note, of 1778, and the 1/3 dollar, of 1776, during that time. They were issued by the various thirteen states.

Brother Brent Morris, PhD, is spot on with what he stated. The Eye of Providence was first used by the Christian churches, (in several cathedrals; one such is Aachen in Germany), and Freemasonry borrowed it. The eye in a triangle signifies God’s eye and the Holy Trinity, not a pyramid. It was used in the US over the churches use of it, and not that of Freemasonry. Regular Freemasonry only uses the eye, not the triangle. The unfinished thirteen step pyramid was off the same colonial 50 dollar note, but the entire design was more close to the 1/3 dollar, and it represented the thirteen states and an unfinished country that God was looking over.



Aachen Cathedral

Last, it would behoove CBS to not make the claim that they did, about Mrs. Jacob being a Masonic expert because she carried a PhD, and to make sure that the other PhDs in the article have their titles listed too, such as Dr. Brent Morris, PhD. Also, Mrs. Jacob should quit claiming to be a Masonic expert, as she does not understand regular Freemasonry, nor does she have any real education about the subject of regular Freemasonry, since she is not a member. If she was such an “expert”, then why did CBS not ask for her opinion on each of the nine topics at hand? The ones who are educated about Freemasonry’s history, such as Brother and Doctor Brent Morris, PhD, know what the fraternity entails, its factual history, and its bylaws, as do all regular Freemasons. Brother Morris is a published Masonic historian after all.


Click here to view the CBS article at the CBS News website.


Regular Lodge. A Lodge or Grand Lodge, that is in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England. A regular Lodge upholds the original Landmarks and Constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England.

Irregular or Clandestine Lodge: A Lodge that is not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, the premiere mother Lodge, and has no warrant to operate as a regular Lodge from the UGLE. Regular Freemasonry considers these Lodges fake.

Ritual: A ritual in Freemasonry, is a play put on, one per each degree, to teach the candidate a moral lesson. The word, ritual, is not religiously based. A ritual, to Freemasons, means that the work has been done many times, and is never changed. The word, ritual, has no religious context in Freemasonry.