Friday, January 14, 2011

Masonic King James

the deleted thread at The UnHived Mind:

KING JAMES VI/I, FREEMASONIC MONARCH

The Unhived Mind Ii > Agents of Deception > KING JAMES VI/I, FREEMASONIC MONARCH


Title: KING JAMES VI/I, FREEMASONIC MONARCH
Description: LODGE DETAILS, JESUIT LINKS & AGENDA


soulinspiration - October 30, 2010 08:56 PM (GMT)
KING JAMES VI/I'S MASTER OF WORKS WILLIAM SCHAW, GENERAL WARDEN OF THE MASONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC, SUSPECTED JESUIT & ENEMY OF THE MASONIC TEMPLAR SINCLAIRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schaw

QUOTE
William Schaw

William Schaw (c. 1550 – 1602) was Master of Works to James VI of Scotland, and is claimed to have been an important figure in the development of freemasonry.

...

Master of Work to the Crown of Scotland
1583–1602

Preceded by Robert Drummond of Carnock

Succeeded by David Cunninghame of Robertland
QUOTE
Biography

William first appears on his own account in the records in 1580 when he was listed by an English informant as a follower of Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox, the king's favourite at the Scottish court.[2]. He signed the negative confession whereby courtiers pledged allegiance to the reformation. ... In May 1583, William Schaw was in Paris at the death of the king's favourite Esmé Stewart and it was said that he took Esmé's heart back to Scotland.[4] On 21 December 1583, James VI appointed him principal Master of Works in Scotland for life, with responsibility for all royal castles and palaces. ... The replacement of the incumbent Robert Drummond of Carnock with Schaw, a Roman Catholic, may have been a reaction to the Ruthven Raid.[6] By the terms of his appointment, Schaw for the rest of his life was to be;

'Grit maister of wark of all and sindrie his hienes palaceis, biggingis and reparationis, - and greit oversear, directour and commander of quhatsumevir police devysit or to be devysit for our soverane lordis behuif and plessur.' or, in current words; 'Great master of work of all and sundry his higness' palaces, building works and repairs, - and great overseer, director and commander of whatsoever policy devised or to be devised for our sovereign lord's behalf and pleasure.' [7]

In November 1583 he travelled on a diplomatic trip to France with Alexander Seton, a fellow Catholic with an interest in architecture. He returned in the winter of 1584, and became involved in building work for the Seton family.[8] In 1585 he was one of three courtiers who entertained Danish ambassadors visiting the court in Dunfermline and St Andrews.[9] In 1588 Schaw was amongst a group of Catholics ordered to appear before the Edinburgh Presbytery, and English agents reported him as being a suspected Jesuit and holding anti-English views during the 1590s.[6] By this time he had acquired the barony of Sauchie.

He was amongst the courtiers who accompanied James VI to Denmark to fetch his new queen Anne of Denmark. He returned in early 1590, ahead of the rest of the party in order to prepare for their subsequent return. He busied himself repairing Holyrood Palace and Dunfermline Palace which had been assigned to the queen. He was also responsible for the elaborate ceremony greeting her arrival at Leith, and he subsequently became master of ceremonies to the court.

By 1593 he was appointed as Chamberlain to the lordship of Dunfermline, i.e. the household of Queen Anne, where he worked closely with Alexander Seton and William Fowler. The Queen gave him a hat badge in the form of a golden salamander at New Year 1594-5. The badge was supplied by the jeweller Thomas Foulis.[10] ...

Schaw died in 1602. He was succeeded as King's Master of Works by David Cunninghame of Robertland.[15] His tomb in Dunfermline Abbey was constructed at the expense of his friend Alexander Seton and a lengthy Latin inscription records Schaw's intellectual skills and achievements.[16] The tomb inscription remains the most valuable source of biographic information, and was almost certainly the work of Alexander Seton, translated it reads:

"This humble structure of stones covers a man of excellent skill, notable probity, singular integrity of life, adorned with the greatest of virtues - William Schaw, Master of the King's Works, President of the Sacred Ceremonies, and the Queen's Chamberlain. He died 18th April, 1602. Among the living he dwelt fifty-two years; he had travelled in France and many other Kingdoms, for the improvement of his mind; he wanted no liberal training; was most skilful in architecture; ... Queen Anne ordered this monument to be erected to the memory of this most excellent and most upright man, lest his virtues, worthy of eternal commendation, should pass away with the death of his body."
QUOTE
Masonic Statutes

First Schaw Statutes

On 28 December 1598 Schaw, in his capacity of Master of Works and General Warden of the master stonemasons, issued "The Statutis and ordinananceis to be obseruit by all the maister maoissounis within this realme". The preamble states that the statutes were issued with the consent of a craft convention, simply specified as all the master masons gathered that day. Schaw's first statutes root themselves in the Old Charges, with additional material to describe a hierarchy of wardens, deacons and masters.
... Six master masons and two entered apprentices had to be present for a master or fellow of the craft to be admitted. Various other rules were laid out for the running of the lodge, supervision of work, and fines for non-attendance at lodge meetings.

The statute was agreed by all the master masons present, and arrangements were made to send a copy to every lodge in Scotland. The statute indicates a significant advance in the organisation of the craft, with shires constituting an intermediate level of organisation. ...

Copies of the statute (along with the Second Shaw Statute) were written into the minutes of Aitchison's Haven (Newbattle) and Edinburgh Lodges.


Second Schaw Statutes

The Second Schaw Statutes were signed on 28 December 1599, at Holyroodhouse and consisted of fourteen separate statutes. Some of these were addressed specifically to Lodge Mother Kilwinning, others to the lodges of Scotland in general. Kilwinning Lodge was given regional authority for west Scotland, its previous practices were confirmed, various administrative functions were specified and the officials of the lodge were enjoined to ensure that all craft fellows and apprentices "tah tryall of the art of memorie".
More generally, rules were laid down for proper record keeping of the lodges, with specific fees being laid down.

The statutes state that Kilwinning was the head and second lodge in Scotland. This seems to relate to the fact that Kilwinning claimed predence as the first lodge in Scotland, but that in Schaw's scheme of things, the Edinburgh Lodge would be most important followed by Kilwinning and then Stirling. David Stevenson argues that the Second Schaw statutes dealt with the response from within the craft to his first statutes, whereby various traditions were mobilised against his innovations, particularly from Kilwinning.[17]
The reference to the art of memory may be taken as a direct reference to renaissance esotericism. William Fowler, who had been a colleague of Schaw both in his trip to Denmark and at Dunfermline, had instructed Queen Anne of Denmark in the technique. Indeed Fowler had met Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno at the house of Michel de Castelnau in London in the 1580s. The art of memory constituted an important element of Bruno's magical system.


The Sinclair Statutes

Two letters were drawn up in 1600 and 1601
and involved the lodges of Dunfermline, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Aitchison's Haven and Haddington, and were signed by Schaw himself in his capacity of Master of Works (but not General Warden). They are known as the First Sinclair Statutes as they supposedly confirm the role of the lairds of Roslin as patrons and protectors of the craft. Once again it would suggest that Schaw's proposed reorganisation of the craft had encountered some problems. Indeed, it presaged an ongoing struggle between the Master of Works and the Sinclairs, which Schaw's successors in the post continued, following his death in 1602.
QUOTE
References

1. ^ Stevenson, David, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's century 1590 - 1710, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 27: Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland, 1556-67, vol. i, HMSO (1957) no. 810, 811: Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, 1559- 1559, HMSO (1916), 23
2. ^ John Strype, Annals of the Reformation, (1824), Vol. II part II, 325
3. ^ Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vol. 8, HMSO, (1982), 35, no. 210, non-entry of Irnecumrie, composition £60.
4. ^ Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth: January-June 1583 and addenda, vol. 17 (1913), no. 362, 9 June 1583
5. ^ National Archives of Scotland E22/6 Treasurer's Accounts f133v
6. ^ a b Stevenson, p. 28
7. ^ Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland, 1581-1584, vol. 8 (1982), 276-277 no. 1676.
8. ^ Scott, Walter ed., Memorie of the Somervilles, Edinburgh (1815), 460.
9. ^ Thomson, Thomas ed., Sir James Melville, Memoirs of My own Life, Edinburgh (1827)
10. ^ National Archives of Scotland E30/14 Thomas Foulis / English Subsidy Account
11. ^ Calendar State Papers Scotland, xiii: NAS E21 Scottish royal accounts 1598 March f50, May f71
12. ^ Glendinning, Miles, and McKechnie, Aonghus, Scottish Architecture, Thames & Hudson, 2004, p.61
13. ^ Reid-Baxter, Jamie, 'Politics, Passion and Poetry in the Court of James VI: John Burel and his surviving works', in Mapstone, S, Houwen, L.A.J.R., and MacDonald, A.A. (eds.) A Palace in the Wind: Essays on Vernacular Culture and Humanism in Late-Medieval and Renaissance, Peeters, 2000, p199-200
14. ^ Chalmers, Robert Domestic Annals of Scotland: Reign of James VI. 1591 - 1603 Part H, 1874 pub. - accessed 2007-05-30
15. ^ McKean, Charles (2001). The Scottish Chateau. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-2323-7. P. 158.
16. ^ RCAHMS Inventory Fife: David Stevenson, Origins of Freemasonry (1988)
17. ^ Stevenson, p48- 49


Bibliography

Chalmers, Robert (1874). "Domestic Annals of Scotland: Reign of James VI. 1591 - 1603 Part H". Electric Scotland. Retrieved 2007-05-30.

Glendinning, Miles, and McKechnie, Aonghus, Scottish Architecture, Thames & Hudson, 2004

Reid-Baxter, Jamie "Politics, Passion and Poetry in the Court of James VI: John Burel and his surviving works", in Mapstone, S, Houwen, L.A.J.R., and

MacDonald, A.A. (eds.) A Palace in the Wind: Essays on Vernacular Culture and Humanism in Late-Medieval and Renaissance, Peeters, 2000

Stevenson, David The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's century 1590 - 1710, Cambridge University Press, 1988
QUOTE
The Origins of Freemasonry

A Lecture given on 25 August 2000, at the 5th International Conference of Great Priories in The Albert Halls, Stirling, Scotland by Dr Robert Lomas of University of Bradford


Where Freemasonry Started

Freemasonry, in the form we would recognise today, started at the building of Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh.


...

Who Built Rosslyn?

Rosslyn was built by Sir William St Clair Last St Clair Jarl of Orkney. He was a direct descent of William de St Clair Last Temple Grand Master of Scotland, who died taking the heart of the dead king, Robert de Bruce on a last crusade to Jerusalem.



Sir William, the chapel builder, is also the direct ancestor of First Grand Master Mason of Scotland, also named William St Clair (Sinclair)

Why did William Build Rosslyn?

To house artifacts brought by the Knights Templar to Scotland in 1126.
Between 1118 and 1128 the Templars excavated the ruins of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. Hugue de Payen, first Grand Master of the Knights Templar, served on the First Crusade with Henri St Clair, First Earl of Roslin and Hugue visited Roslin in 1126 where he was given land to build the first Templar Preceptory outside the Holy Land.

...

In 1440 William St Clair was the most powerful man in Scotland.

He decided to build Rosslyn to house the treasures he had inherited from the Templars and establish a seat of spiritual authority to rival James II who was dabbling in English politics and finally got himself killed during the War of the Roses.


William brought in Masons to build Rosslyn and built the town of Roslin to house them.

When James II died (1460) his son, James III, thought William was posing to great a threat to the Crown of Scotland so he stripped William of Orkney and broke up his estates

So now we have visited briefly some of the key events involved in the creation of Freemasonry. There is much more to the story, for example the St Clairs had lands at Kilwinning and were involved with famous Mother Kilwinning Lodge there
, but there is not enough time today to tell the full story. So let me finish with a Timeline of the Key events which led to the Formation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1736.

The Timeline of Freemasonry

1440 Masons given the Mason word by William to preserve the secrets of the Templars he was building Rosslyn to house.


1483 The burgh of Aberdeen is recorded as being involved in settlement of a dispute between six ‘masownys of the lurge’. Masonry is starting to spread out as lodges initiate Candidates and give the the 'Mason Word'

1599 Earliest surviving Lodge Minutes from Edinburgh

1601 James VI made a Mason at Lodge of Scoon and Perth.

1602 William Schaw sets up the modern lodge system in Scotland following the instructions of James VI
[NOTE: This is the incorrect date, it was actually in 1598 that King James VI commissioned Schaw to restructure Masonry. 1602 was the year of Schaw's death. - T.S.]

1602 The Lodges of Scotland affirm William St Clair of Roslin as hereditary Grand Master Mason of Scotland from TI

1603 James VI takes Freemasonry to England when he becomes James I of Britain


1641 Sir Robert Moray becomes the first Mason recorded to be made on English Soil.

1715 First Jacobite Rising, lodges begin to disclaim their Scottish roots

1717 Formation of Grand Lodge of London denies Jacobite Heritage

1725 First National Grand Lodge formed in Ireland

1736 Grand Lodge of Scotland Formed as a counter measure to London expansionism.

1736 William St Clair of Roslin made First Grand Master Mason of Scotland and signs away his hereditary rights in favour of elected officers.



Let me leave you with a portrait of William Sinclair of Roslin, First Grand Master Mason of Scotland 1736



Incidentally, William had to be made a Mason before he could take over as grand master mason.



http://www.stbryde.co.uk/articles/freemasonry%20in%20scotland%20-%20pre%201736.htm

PM Bro James Jack, Unity Lodge No. 146 "Masonry in Scotland before the formation of Grand Lodge in 1736"

QUOTE
Then in 1601 a document known as the St. Clair "Charter" was drawn up by William Schaw. This Charter suggested that William St. Clair of Roslyn obtain from the Crown, for himself and his heirs the Office of Patron and Judge over the whole craft.

Up until this time, the Lodges in Scotland were comprised mainly of operative masons, some non operatives were invited to join to ensure the patronage of local gentry, they worked a two degree system in the Lodges of this time (the third degree did not come into existence for a further 120 years).


...

Non operative masons had been initiated into Lodges but these were mainly local gentry, however, the first recorded non operative present in a Lodge was John Boswell, who was present at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh on 8th. June 1600.

Non operative masonry received a tremendous boost when it is thought that in 1601 King James 6th of Scotland and 1st of England was admitted into Lodge Scone and Perth. This was to have a profound effect on Scottish masonry, as non-operatives were to be very prominent in many Lodges.


For the non-operatives there were only two steps in Lodge progress, to entered apprentice and then to fellow craft or master. There were naturally no trade tests and it was usual during the 17th. Century to have both ceremonies on the same night.
QUOTE
James VI of Scotland

June 19, 1566 - March 27, 1625

King of Scotland (1567-1625), and the first Stuart King of England (1603-25)
, English historians have tended to portray him as a coward and a fussy and foolish pedant: 'The wisest fool in Christendom'. In fact he was reasonably successful in his main goals, increasing national prosperity, maintaining peace with Europe and settling the church. Today, he is remembered for commissioning the so-called King James' Bible, or Authorized Version.

On the west wall of the lodge hall used by Lodge Scoon and Perth No. 3 in Perth, Scotland can be found a mural depicting James VI kneeling at their altar at his initiation. The oldest existing record of the Lodge, called "The Mutual Agreement" of 24 December, 1658, records that James was "entered Freemason and Fellowcraft of the Lodge of Scoon" on 15 April, 1601.

James also appointed William Schaw as Master of the Work and Warden General in 1583, with the commission of re-organising the masonic craft. In 1598, Schaw issued the first of his statutes, setting out the duties of masons to their lodge and to the public, imposing penalties for unsatisfactory work and inadequate safety practices. Schaw drew up a second statute in 1599 wherein the first veiled reference to the existence of esoteric knowledge within the craft of stone masonry can be found.

Initiated: April 15, 1601

Lodge Scoon and Perth No. 3, Perth, Scotland

Source: D. Crawford Smith and William James Hughan, History of the Ancient Masonic Lodge of Scoon and Perth (Number 3, The Lodge of Scone) Perth: Cowan and Company, Limited, 1898. Also see: Year Book of the Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland 1990, p. 50.
Note that the Contract or Mutual Agreement is the only record of this initiation, that this history was commissioned by the lodge to establish its claims of precedence, and there is no primary source documentation. Image: artist unknown 'detail'. Scottish National Portrait Gallery.



The Ancient Lodge of Scoon & Perth No 3

http://www.lodgeailsa.org/MentoringDocs/ScoonSpeech.pdf

QUOTE
Good evening Brethren, this is the first time I have given this talk on the history and a description of the murals of my 'Mother Lodge' out with the confines of the familiar and comforting surroundings of my own Lodge.

The adaptation of this talk was quite daunting. Firstly let me say it is a pleasure to be here at the invitation of Brother Peter Danbury, your Lodge Secretary and an affiliate of Lodge Scoon & Perth. What you would call a Joining Member. Just one of the many differences we have North of the Border. If you will bear with me, I will try and explain some of these differences as I continue through this talk and at the end, if there are any points still unclear, I along with my fellow members of No 3 here, will attempt to answer them for you.

The Ancient Lodge of Scoon & Perth No 3 on the Roll of the Grand Lodge of Scotland are privileged to enjoy the company of many visitors. To all we always give a right “Warm Welcome". We believe there are three main reasons for Brethren from 'a the 'airts calling on us, The long history of the Lodge, the beauty of our Temple and our Masonic Museum, with the almost unique collection of old aprons, mainly of this Lodge Scoon & Perth No 3. Sadly we lost a number of these in the disastrous fire of 1993, the old aprons that were made of skins shrunk to about two thirds of their original size.

I hope my talk to you will prove of interest, although it must be clearly understood that no attempt has been made at a complete history, but merely touching on some prominent dates and events.

You will understand that many of the oldest Lodges do not have written proof of their ancient beginnings due to a variety of reasons. One of these was that not many people could read or write. The earliest ones who could were the monks and priests, and not all of them had that ability. An early copy of a Bible, for instance would cost the equivalent of three or four farms. Another, the secrecy of the craft in early times and thirdly, the troubled times in the country's history.

In 1653 Oliver Cromwell raised his Citadel beside the River Tay at the south side of the City of Perth. Stabling his cavalry horses in St John's Kirk, he then laid waste to the city, removing an the stone and timbers of the town, the turf from both of the inch’s and clearing most of the more substantial trees between Perth and Falkland, for his Citadel. He had 18,000 troops stationed at Perth who caused quite large scale destruction and devastation making it very difficult for anyone to try and preserve written records through these troubled times.

This Temple was Consecrated on the 4th March 1933 and a description of it in due time. I do emphasize, however, that it is a consecrated building. No man need enter, unless he be in search of light. Should he knock at the door, guidance will be granted not only in the degrees practiced under the Grand Lodge of Scotland’s Charter of Confirmation, but also in the ‘Higher Orders’ of Freemasonry through the courtesy of Lodge Scoon & Perth in granting these 'Orders’ the use of the Temple and premises.

Like many Ancient Incorporations and Societies, the History of Lodge Scoon & Perth is partly traditional. Our early records are lost, but we are a Lodge acknowledged to be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, in Scotland, although our earliest document helped to establish Lodge Mother Kilwinning, as the pre-eminent Lodge in the land, but more on this later.

You are all no doubt aware that with the fusion of the Picts and the Scots, Scotland had become a Nation. It seems to have been the urge of the Scottish Kings for some centuries thereafter to build monuments, some to mark their reign, but usually, let it be said, to the Glory of God.

Scoon has long had a prominent part in Scottish History. In the reign of King Kenneth McAlpin it was made the Capital about the year 843 AD when the Stone of Fate, or as it is now known - The Stone of Destiny or the Coronation Stone, was brought here from Dunstafinage. In later times several Parliaments were held at Scoon and in 1114 AD King Alexander I founded and established an Abbey at Scoon.

If you look to the rear of the Lodge on the West Wall the History of the Lodge proper begins. In the large panel twelve feet long by eight feet six inches high and treated in triptych is an animated scene depicting the building of the Abbey of Scoon. We are shown the main entrance to the Abbey. King Alexander I of Scotland, in 1115, the reigning monarch at the time, has alighted during a hunting trip, to view the progress of the building. The Master Mason, depicted as a venerable figure, is describing the plans of the Abbey, which are held and displayed by an Apprentice. In the retinue of the King we see his Huntsman, the Knights Templars and other figures giving a meaningful message to the Initiate. In the course of construction, the workmen, in an unobtrusive manner are making use of a great many of the working tools. In keeping with the times the Masons who built the Abbey would form themselves into a Lodge. If the ‘Antiquity of the Old Lodges' is to be determined by the age of the churches or buildings with which they are connected, then it follows that the Lodge of Scoon is one of the oldest of the Scottish Lodges. The Abbey of Kilwinning was not founded until 1140.


Whilst Scoon continued to be a Royal Residence and the place where the Scottish Kings were crowned, Perth became the Capital of Scotland. The Lodge of Scoon would then be moved there, where the craftsmen would find plenty of work, for a long time after Perth was well supplied with religious houses. The oldest of the City monasteries built for the Blackfriars lay North of the Burgh founded by King Alexander II in 1231 on whose land our present Lodge premises now stands. The Carmelites or Whitefriars came to Scotland in 1257 and built the smallest of the monasteries round the City, on the Lands of Tullilum. After its destruction the village of Dovecotland was formed in the area of their doocote or pigeon loft. The Carthusian Monastery founded by King James I in 1429, stood outside the West Wall of the City. The monks dressed in white and observed the ru1e of strict silence. The Franciscan or Greyfriars of St. Francis of Assissi, were the last of the great monastic orders to come to our City in 1460 under the protection of Lord Oliphant. These were all more or less destroyed after John Knox's sermon in 1559. King James the VI Hospital built in the old apple orchard Pomarium of the Carthusians. The fact of our Lodge being called the "Lodge of Scoon” is in its self a very strong proof of our antiquity, for had there not been a Lodge erected at Scoon in its earliest days, there was less likelihood of a Lodge being established until modem times. Lodge Stormont No 1524 was consecrated at New Scone in 1956.

Our oldest document is dated 24th December 1658, is the Mutual Agreement 1658. A facsimile can be seen in the North West of the Lodge. The original is in safe keeping in Register House, Edinburgh. It contains the interesting statement giving the genesis of the Lodge, viz:- four hundred, three score and five years or thereby, before 1658. This gives us 1193, as the approximate date of the foundation of the Lodge. The Abbey of Scone was founded in 1114, being 79 years before, so that as D. Crawford Smith says in his 1897 History of the Lodge "or thereby means just 79 years”

This famous document while not a CHARTER can almost be called that. It is our most prized possession and to us is beyond price. It was signed by 41 Brethren of the Lodge and was recorded in the Books of the Grand Lodge of Scotland on the 19th May 1742.

The document also declares 'the current tradition of the time' "the Ancient Lodge of Kilwinning was the first Masonic Lodge established in Scotland" this bears out my earlier statement that Lodge Scoon & Perth considerably helped Lodge Mother Kilwinning to her now established position.
We also learn that King James VI [he would be 34 at this time] by his own wish was entered Freeman and Fellow of Craft of the Lodge. There is nothing strange in that the King should wish to be entered a member of the 'Craft’ as he would be initiated by his own Royal Master Mason John Mylne (Secundus), a member of the family who provided the Masters of this Lodge for generations.

[it should be remembered there was no Master Mason Degree in these days]. The first mention of MASTER MASON DEGREE being worked in the Lodge was 31st December 1744 On the North Wall of the Lodge, there is a mural depicting James VI King of Scots, at the graveside during his Second Degree, by John Mylne (Secundus) 15th April 1601. (subsequently, at the Union of the Crowns 1603 he becomes King James I of England, and is usually referred to as just James VI & I) It is noteworthy that this document to which all subscribed their names, began with the invocation of the name of God and ended with a prayer for his blessing. In this most certainly lay the strong link in the chain of their continuance.

soulinspiration - January 7, 2011 01:58 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:24, Craig Oxley wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:43:24 -0500, "Eric Phelps" said:

Schaw died in 1602 and had nothing to do with the Protestant reign of King James.

Bancroft was not on any of the committes of translation. No doubt James persecuted the Puritans, but that had nothing to do with the translation of the text.

More lies from Jesuit Troy Space in his attempt to destroy the foundation for White Protestant Western Civilization in accord with the Council of Trent.

Brother Eric


QUOTE
From: TS
Date: 7 January 2011 01:45:57 GMT
ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA

Dear Craig

King James was no Protestant (he was a crypto-Catholic & aligned with that Roman carbon-copy Church of England) & has nothing to do with the foundation of Protestant Western Civilization (the usurpation of it by Jesuit-loyal forces - yes!). He was a Papal Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, overseen (until 1602) by Roman Catholic "General Warden of the Craft" William Schaw - who between them were the first two Jesuit emissaries who sought to infiltrate & control Scottish Freemasonry (not the "Scottish" Rite, which was a product of Jesuit/Stewart intrigues in France via Prussia & onto the USA eventually) - that branch of the Templars who were still then hostile to the Roman/Jesuit nexus. Schaw was seminal in forming James ongoing crypto-Romish mindset - which manifested in his actions & inactions & was thinly covered by his rhetorical, propagandist writings.

So according to Eric I am a "Jesuit"?! Yes, black is white & white is black with Eric Phelps it seems. Perhaps he should apply to be the Black Pope's official director of the "Anti-Jesuit Movement", as he clearly seems to be displaying the necessary symbolic reversal techniques? Quite frankly - despite my central disagreements with Eric regarding James VI/I, the KJV & George Washington, I still had quite a bit of respect for Eric until reading that pathetic smear attempt. Pretty disappointing if not altogether unsurprising, considering my having rejected a number of Eric's "sacred cows". After discovering & reading the mountain of evidence against these two false heroes I could not go along with the cover stories enveloping them any longer.

My advice to all truthseekers looking for the most accurate expose on James VI/I's pro-Romanism & details some (but by no means all) of his several subsequent Jesuit advisors is John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed"(Pp. 95, 224-245).

This book is available at the following links for those wishing to take the blinkers off:

http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com/Part%205.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Exposed-John-Daniel/dp/B000QJOUF6 (a bit more expensive at this latter link for reasons unknown).

This excellent & crucial reference work is also most excellent at revealing Order of Cincinnati/Royal Arch Mason George Washington's Romanist leanings & Jesuit connections - as is that other most scholarly Jesuit-exposing history book P.D. Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon" (which Eric ironically sells on his website).

If I am a Jesuit, then so is John Daniel & PD Stuart - by Eric's standards. Let people think what they will - but let them be given all of the available sides to the story first. Why is Eric's version of all events of history (which includes covering up the Catholic complicity of James VI/I & George Washington - for reasons best known to Eric himself) the only "acceptable" version of events? Can Eric name one Jesuit asset that I have covered up & gatekeepered the activities of? Nope! But I have named two of the big ones & he dislikes this so much that he calls me a "Jesuit". Nice try but really - very weak & pitiful. The "my way or the highway" attitude says more about the critic than the one who is criticised.

Eric's writings on historical matters & those pertaining to more contemporary goings on have great value & I do not recommend that they are dismissed by any means. Far from it. However, they do not & should not exist in a vacuum & books such as those listed above should be given equal weight & value & concerning the info that they bring forth on James VI/I (in "Grand Design Exposed") & George Washington (in "G.D.E." & "Codeword Barbelon") they should in my humble opinion be given far greater weight, as their conclusions are the same as mine reached independently, their information & mine complementing & fleshing out the reality behind the foundation myths of these two characters.

A brief summary of my issues with James for those who want a quick overview (utilising selections from posts of mine at the Unhived Mind to minimise needless retyping):

QUOTE
All of James' words are but as the chaff which the wind bloweth away (Psalms 1:4) compared to his actions & non-actions which say it all:

* Replacing the Bible of the Reformation, the Geneva Bible with his authorised official crown/state version.

* Forcing Catholic practices upon Protestants: see the Five Articles of Perth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Perth & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_475.html ).

* Dissolving English Parliament in 1621 after being challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war against Roman Catholic Spain & for the demand that his son Charles, Prince of Wales to marry a Protestant - rather than his preference, the Roman Catholic Spanish Infanta, Maria: see the Spanish Match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_VI#Spanish_match )



As for the Gunpowder Plot:

QUOTE
QUOTE
cui bono?

exclamation
who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to whom (is it) a benefit?’



Hmm, seems to fit the time frame for the words origin just perfectly too. So who did benefit?

King James himself:

His spymaster Sir Robert Cecil (1st earl of Salisbury) successfully managed to extract one of the highest royal subsidies ever from Parliament in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot. He also had the perfect cover for implementing pro-Roman actions & avoiding the enforcement of anti-Roman ones, while mouthing anti-Roman rhetoric, thus acting as the perfect tool for the Jesuits this side of the English Channel.

The Jesuits themselves in both the short & the long term:

- Through the High Commssion's ruthless & brutal suppression of the Protestant Reformers (as opposed to the Church of England Conformers) & the Protestant Geneva Bible & via King James carefully minimising repression of Catholics, with the Anti-Catholic laws being a thin "smoke screen".

- The ability to eventually come to fully control the United Kingdom, facilitated by both James' Masonic structure (reworked by James' Grand Warden William Schaw) & the crypto-Catholic Church of England's monopoly on ecclesiastical matters, both entities eventually contributing greatly in different measures to the near-complete legal (compounded by the present financial) destruction of UK sovereignty & its spiritual weakening, leading to its amalgamation into the Jesuit-created Papal European Union.


Eric's claim that Bancroft was not on the AKJV translation committee is just plain wrong.

Strangely Eric seems to have completely forgotten this previous piece of correspondence which showed him to be as wrong then as he is now.

I note that Eric wasn't able to reply then - without showing his error, which instead he insists on repeating now. As Eric would say: "The question is why?"

QUOTE
ARCHBISHOP RICHARD BANCROFT, KING JAMES VI/I'S K.J.V. CHIEF OVERSEER/TASK-MASTER, TRANSLATOR & HIGH COMMISSION COURT ENGLISH INQUISITION "RULING SPIRIT"

Dear Eric

You write:

QUOTE
Bancroft was not a translator. Check the list.


&:

QUOTE
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?



Bancroft was a Translator as well as the chief overseer of the project:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Committees

QUOTE
Committees

First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:

Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;

First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:

Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;

First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:

John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne;[53]

Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:

Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten;

Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:

William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;

Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:

John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.[54]

54. ^ (Bobrick 2001, pp. 223–244)

Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477
QUOTE
Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[52]

^ (Bobrick 2001, p. 257)

Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477



Eric, as per your second question:

QUOTE
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?



KJV Translators who were also members of the anti-Reformist, pro-Conformist High Commission English Inquisition included:

Richard Bancroft (with the Company who Translated the Apocrypha - let us note of the High Commission's love of the Apocrypha that:

QUOTE
In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367).
)

Lancelot Andrewes (with the Company who Translated Genesis to 2 Kings)

George Abbot (with the Company who Translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles & the Book of Revelation)


More details here:

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html


Full list of sources here:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=33988&st=60#entry3459996


Alexander McClure wrote that Archbishop Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" ("The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible" (1853), p. 217).

In Christ -

Troy


P.S.: Please find below new & more detailed information on the interference of Bancroft on the KJV Translation that I had not read before tonight from a follow-up addendum to a series of pieces from which I have quoted before (& which themselves have more on Bancroft's High Commission Court English Inquisition orchestration, viewable at the following link but not posted in the text below) & which I now post for the edification of all interested parties:

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm

QUOTE
In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).
KJV-only advocates may question the validity of Jessey's claim about changes reflecting Episcopal bias being introduced in the 1611, but this claim is likely based on a similar reported claim by someone who would have known firsthand, one of the KJV translators themselves. Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).

In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).

Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to theking as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7).

Along with Henry Jessey and KJV translator Miles Smith, another man made a report about these changes. In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].



- TS

soulinspiration - January 7, 2011 05:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Oxley
To: "Eric Phelps"
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re:

Why do you call Troy a Jesuit? I doubt this very much, although he does
have a large dislike of the Venetian rooted Opus Dei via the Spanish
front.


QUOTE
On 7 Jan 2011, at 00:25, Craig Oxley wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:41:50 -0500, "Eric Phelps" said:

Dear Craig,

Over several months, I have been forced to this conclusion via Troy's own
self-incriminating words.

1. Troy sided with F. Tupper Saussy against me when I accused Saussy of
being a Jesuit coadjutor. He never asked me for a clarification, but
hands down, I was dead wrong. I know Saussy was a coadjutor and intend
to fully prove my point in the near future from quotations from his
Rulers of Evil which I have read four times. Saussy promoted that the
Order has the right to be the ruler of evil which is not to be resisted
by anyone. He further claims that armed resistance of Christians to
governments controlled by the Order is biblically wrong thus undermining
the entire Reformation and promoting the Counter Reformation.

2. Troy refuses to consider evidence that George Washington was indeed a
Bible-believing Christian, not conspirator or a Roman Catholic. No,
George was just another Illuminati Freemason working for the Jesuit Order
despite the high Christian character of our "American Joshua" as
described by the great Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College. Troy
ignored the fact that Washington was baptized by one of his captains,
Baptist Pastor John Gano, in the Hudson River in 1783 as documented by
Dr. William P. Grady. All of this means nothing to Troy.

3. Troy favors Zagami over Vivaldi when Zagami sought to prevent Vivaldi
from exposing the Council of Ten in a public forum. Without Vivaldi, we
would have no knowledge of the Jesuit Council of Ten noble families.
Zagami hates Oliver Cromwell while Vivaldi loves him. Zagami hates the
Bible while Vivaldi at least reads it despite certain inconsistencies of
the past.

4. Troy utterly condemns the AV1611 English Bible as a work of the
Jesuits and Freemasonry. I put Troy in contact with Brother Alan
O'Reilly, one of the foremost English scholars on the topic of the
Reformation and the AV1611. This man is a published author and has
worked in this arena for the last forty years or so. Troy refused to
heed his comments or even meet with Alan in person. This betrays an
agenda that is pro-Counter Reformation.

5. Troy utterly condemns the Protestant British Empire as being evil
from its inception, the day King James united Scotland with England via
the AV1611 Bible. With that unity, God sent the Scriptures to the end of
the earth with the British shippers and navy, the AV1611 to be translated
into 60 different languages. This is evil in Troy's eyes. The British
Empire was nothing but an oppressor of mankind spreading a false version
of the Bible---a most beloved Jesuit shibboleth.

6. Troy utterly condemns King James I, refusing to consider the fact
that James I was truly converted to Christ after he arrived in London
from Scotland in 1604. King James' Works of 1616 prove his belief on
Christ of the Bible. Further, Troy avoids the truth that James I
publicly burned the works of Jesuit Francisco Suarez justifying regicide.
James also expelled the Order in 1604, shortly after he became king; in
the same year authorized a new translation of the English Bible; in 1605
was nearly blown to bits by the Order's Gunpowder Plot foiled by King
Henry IV of France for which the Order would stab Henry through the heart
in 1610. All of this is avoided by Troy, lest evidence of James' loyalty
to the Reformation, at least in the early years of his kingship, should
be admitted.

7. Troy continually claims that Roman Catholic William Schaw was a
controller of James, yet Schaw died in 1602, nearly two years prior to
James' formal, physical accession to the throne.

8. Troy claims that the Order was in control of all Freemasonry from the
beginning of its restoration in the late 1500s to the present day. He
never gives ascent to the two Grand Masonic Schisms without which there
would never have been the pope's suppression of the Jesuit Order or the
founding of the Protestant Federal Republic of these United States of
America (1789-1868). He avoids the fact that American Freemasonry was
not controlled by the Jesuit-ruled Illuminati at the time of the
Protestant and Baptist Calvinist American Revolution, a fact that
Washington made quite clear.

Thus, based upon the above, Troy, in espousing Jesuit doctrine, is either
a Temporal Coadjutor or stupidly deceived. He attacks the very linchpins
of the Reformation and nations born out of that grand revolution, an
attack that even a professed Jesuit could not improve upon. Since I know
Troy is one of the most brilliant men I have ever met, he is not stupid,
ignorant or deceived. He knows exactly what he is doing: furthering the
Black Pope's Counter Reformation, tearing the English and Scottish
peoples away from the Book that, if believed and acted upon, would set
back the pope's Temporal Power in Great Britain---and America. For if
the pope's Spiritual Power is not broken via the Word of God in English,
then his Temporal Power over the most hated nation of England will never
be broken.

Though I deeply regret the above conclusion, it is true based upon the
evidence that Troy himself has provided. He has condemned himself with
his own words.

Further, Opus Dei is not connected with or founded by the Venetians. The
Venetians have been a conquered people with on political power since
Jesuit-directed Napoleon destroyed the pro-Reformation Republic of Venice
in 1797. The Spanish Jesuit Josemaria Escriva started that damnable
Order in Jesuit-ruled Spain in 1928, the same year the Order founded the
Muslim Brotherhood.

Lord bless,

Brother Eric


QUOTE
From: TS
Date: 7 January 2011 05:12:43 GMT
COMMENTS ON ERIC PHELPS' 8-POINT FALSE JESUIT DOCTRINE "CHARGE SHEET" ACCUSATIONS

Dear Craig

I shall comment on Eric's quite odd & frankly largely false statements below regarding myself on a point by point basis.

Firstly I recommend that all readers read the following prologue concerning Eric's quite fallacious statement, which he then goes on to elaborate in a most convoluted & unbecoming manner below:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=43628&st=0#entry3585488

Continuing:

1: I asked Eric in correspondence a very long time ago to provide full details as to why he stated that Saussy was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. As for Eric being "dead wrong" I have no recollection of stating this. Saussy's work ("Rulers of Evil" - available at: http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0066210836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294366455&sr=8-1 & http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0967376807/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t ) has much to recommend it & confirms much of the historical expositions & revelations of John Daniel & PD Stuart. However Saussy's philosophical conclusions were rather oblique & peculiar & not shared by myself. Still: "Eat the meat & spit out the bones" as Eric says. To say that I sided with Saussy is I think a bit of a stretch. Still, if Eric can provide a dated email quote from myself then we can see for ourselves just how far of a stretch that would have been.

2: Those who doubt Washington's pro-Romish actions & Jesuit associations should read P.D. Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon", John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed" - & Eric's "favourite" Tupper Saussy's "Rulers of Evil". Three very different Jesuit-exposing authors with three quite different vantage points & outlooks - yet all three agreeing on Washington's duplicity.

For independent revealing info on Washington I also recommend:

"WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON SHOULD BE THE POPE'S HERO" (APPROPRIATE PRO-ROMISH ACTIONS FOR THE BOY FROM POPE'S CREEK WHO CRIBBED THE POPE'S POET!)

"Why George Washington Should Be the Pope's Hero"

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/04/why-george-washington-should-b.html#ixzz17gYg6nex

Also:

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S "CIVIL RULES" (1747) PLAGIARIZED PAPAL POET'S "RULES OF CIVILITY" (1551);
G.W. PRAISED BY CATHOLIC, S.M.O.M., BILDERBERGER FRENCH PRES. D'ESTAING

http://acivilair.blogspot.com/2008/03/picture-2.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ks_tt9V28gg/R-WV53Y20OI/AAAAAAAABNU/m8moQ9Wn4VE/s1600-h/Picture+2-755212.jpg

As I wrote to Walt Williams before he recently asked me to remove him from my email list:

QUOTE
Using your reasoning, do you believe that John Daniel (in "Grand Design Exposed") & PD Stuart (whose "Codeword Barbelon" Eric sells at his website) - who both maintain that George Washington was not only allied to the Jesuits - might be Jesuits themselves? ... Washington had Royal Arch artifacts among his possessions. This is more a sign of Jesuit infiltration of certain Masonic lodges & chapters - at least on the US at the time - due to the fact that their creation was the French/Prussian-developed system that later became the Scottish Rite, rather than the British Isles-originating Royal Arch.

Also: Washington's preeminent position within the Society of Cincinnati indicates that he did have Romish leanings ... As I have posted once before:

QUOTE
Interesting to note among its members who were also US Presidents that we find Roosevelt & Truman, respectively the 32nd & 33rd Presidents of the US & also respectively 32 & 33° Freemasons. We also find as members, those SMOM Order of Merit members US Presidents Reagan & Bush. Two of the most openly devoted US servants of Rome who alongside their antecedent were members of a hereditary society named after a Roman Consul turned Magister Populi.

Also thought-provoking is that one Larz Anderson III, hailing from Cincinnati, Ohio is considered to have been a prototypical member, especially when we note that he was the First Secretary of the American Embassy & Charges d'Affaires in Rome.



3: V.V. Vivaldi-Pasqua III mostly tells Eric what he thinks he wants to hear. I have stated before that I believe his information regarding this supposed Council of Ten is flawed & inconsistent. When I first interviewed him he wasn't even sure of this number "ten" which he eventually settled on & which I surmise he derived from the old Venetian Council of Ten (no surprise as he lives in Venice). Also: the old Houses of Farnese, Borja/Borgia, Pamphili & Aldobrandini no longer exist. The current "Aldobrandini" are really a branch of the Borghese family who adopted the name. One irreconcilable point that VVV made & which EJP rejects is that the Council of Ten rule over the Jesuit Superior General. EJP's rejection of this statement nulls his claim of the great contribution of VVV's info on this supposed "Council". I don't recall Zagami ever commenting on Cromwell. As for his position on the Bible, from what I can make out he is more critical of orthodox interpretations of the scriptures rather than completely hostile per se. What VVV (which of course means "666" - as though Eric was unaware!) really thinks of the Bible is anyone's guess. If he thinks as much of it as he does the Archbishop/Patriarch of Venice Scola, then he must love it - in a very Catholic kind of way!

4: The AV1611 was a work of Reformation-derailing, Protestant-torturing, crypto-Catholic Anglican High Commission Court members & their cronies. Commissioned to usurp the true Bible of the Reformation, the Geneva, its publication was a political statement of monarchical/ecclesiastical totalitarian authority. Sure it is great literature, but its best writing was lifted straight from the Geneva - its spiritual superior. Its worst parts were taken from the Latin Vulgate (which themselves had become further corrupted over time). Alan O'Reilly is a member of the false opposition BNP & as far as I recall lives in Craig's city of Birmingham, not London where I live. Eric is no doubt getting confused as to who has refused to meet with him as no such invitation has ever been extended to myself. While Alan is a most-studied man in the Bible I believe that he is defending a religious ideology that ultimately maintains the largely covert British Intelligence-guarded Establishment status quo rather than seriously challenges it. He will no doubt claim to disagree.

5: It is impossible for the AV1611 to be translated into even one different tongue, let alone 60. A translation is a translation. They will be as different as the different English-language translations are from each other - in some cases probably even more (excepting any removed passages). Eric's claim that I believe this is evil is a laughable fiction. As for the "Protestant British Empire": Well I certainly don't think that the former term is compatible with the latter. Empires are for Caesars. My Lord's kingdom is not of this world.

John 18:36 (using Eric's preferred KJV):

QUOTE
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


John 19:15:

QUOTE
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.


As I have shown in previous correspondence any tensions between James VI/I & the Jesuits (such as the Gunpowder Plot) were elaborate deceptions as proved by James long-term, closely Jesuit-advised, pro-Roman actions both before & after this diversion operation. The British Empire from the time of James VI/I on was an extension of the Roman Empire utilising a Masonic mask. What Eric calls a Jesuit shibboleth is in fact a Hegelian dialectical strategy of the Jesuits that he has either fallen for or is completely aware of but covers up for reasons unstated.

6: Eric claims that I "avoid" certain actions & words attributed to James VI/I. This is false. I have dealt with most of these before. My position is that actions speak louder than words. The "English Inquisition" of the High Commission Court, the financial windfall that resulted from the Gunpowder Plot, The Five Articles of Perth that were forced on Scotland, the dissolution of Parliament in 1621 over their anti-Roman demands & James VI/I's many Jesuit & Catholic advisors as detailed in John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed" & via my own researches all speak louder than some almost certainly ghostwritten sops attributed to the Masonic monarch.

7: William Schaw, Rome's man in Albion influencing the Scottish monarch had a number of successor Jesuit & Catholic royal advisors in his English period. This can be discerned from the insightful research of John Daniel in "Grand Design Exposed", which provides crucial details concerning the likes of James VI/I's Secretary of State George Calvert.

8: Eric writes:

"Troy claims that the Order was in control of all Freemasonry from the beginning of its restoration in the late 1500s to the present day."

This is complete & utter fabrication. The Jesuits via William Schaw & James VI of Scotland (late James I of England, who brought Schaw's Masonic system with him) tried to takeover Freemasonry in Scotland from 1598 through to Schaw's death in 1602 - & failed. The precise nature & extent of Jesuit influence over FM in Scotland in subsequent centuries is difficult to assess, but I have yet to come across evidence of the close Roman connections that FM in England has as witnessed via the Duke of Kent (United Grand Lodge of England Grand Master & husband to a Roman Catholic & whose son was married in the Vatican in 2006) & his younger brother Prince Michael of Kent (whose wife is the Senior Dame for the British & Irish delegation of the Papal-loyal Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order), both first cousins to the Queen of England. I maintain that there are certain key lodges & high Masonic officers who are loyal to the Jesuit-directed Papal Roman Empire & that certain influential obediences & Masonic lineages are instrumental in this Rome-serving covert global power structure. The most pre-eminent among these being the United Grand Lodge of England & the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite. American Freemasonry was, despite Eric's protests to the contrary, without doubt Jesuit-infiltrated by the time of the American Revolution. George Washington was the foremost example of this. The books of Daniel, Stuart & Saussy leave one in no doubt of this. Eric can write off Saussy, but l don't hear him attacking John Daniel & P.D. Stuart. Their studies need to be examined by all concerned parties.

Eric says it all when he declares:

"Troy ... is not stupid, ignorant or deceived."

Indeed. I see things most clearly & pass on to others what I see so that they too may benefit from the unobscured perspectives & revelatory insights that have come my way one way or the other & which I claim little credit for.

These "very lynchpins of the Reformation" that Eric refers to are nothing of the sort. The true Reformation was in the 1500's & the Jesuits via their high-level agents & assets from the end of that century through to the latter part of the 1700's worked ceaselessly to ensure that the British Isles (& thus Empire of the time) & America would be Roman colonies. Men like James VI/I & George Washington were the ones who furthered "the Black Pope's Counter Reformation". If I lie, then John Daniel & P.D. Stuart lie.

The claim that I am "tearing away the English and Scottish peoples" from the Bible is contrived to say the least. In my fight to get the Geneva Bible reassessed & made known on a wider scale I have been seeking to redress an historical wrong & to show that that is the only Bible worthy of the epithet "Reformation Bible". I am not saying that it is the only one worth reading & owning & I am not saying "put away your King James Bibles". I am saying that too many falsehoods have for too long surrounded the latter via the inflated claims of some of its adherents & that that actually undermines its credibility & stature, i.e. too many of its adherents are its own worst enemy.

So in my deconstruction of Eric's multi-pointed charge sheet I have also shown the lack of substance to his claims, showing that I have not provided the evidence that he claims or said the words with which he claims that I have condemned myself.

Eric takes your connection of Opus Dei to Venice as being mine (& of which I myself am unaware). So on his subsequent points there we do actually concur in a strange poetic conclusion.

Godspeed -

Troy

soulinspiration - January 7, 2011 02:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
On 7 Jan 2011, at 06:12, Avenueoflight wrote:

TROY... I am glad you have taken the incentive to research these things for yourself and have come to find that these things we teach are truth! Exactly,...... why are the Carrolls (biggest part of this picture) Washington, Ricci, Franklin, and the others left out of the picture? Largest landholders and slaveholders in the country! Living directly across the river one from the other. Covering up the Jesuit (Carroll's) total involvement with the founding of this nation for their political / religious / monetary CONtrol for these end days approaching and the Mark of the Beast using ameriKa as the militant arm of the Vatican. Rev. 13, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:45the militant arm of Rome to enforce it upon mankind. Truth is Truth

Here is another source, cash or money order to cash :

http://seawaves.us/daniel/shame.html



QUOTE
From: TS
Subject: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Date: 7 January 2011 14:04:11 GMT

John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed" contains some crucial, too seldom discussed or even known of matters of historical import Mike. Those chapters on James VI/I, George Washington & their links to Rome provide crucial info for fully grasping the magnitude of the Jesuit deception. No investigation into the New World Order is balanced without a look into the information provided in that book or in Saussy's "Rulers of Evil" & PD Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon".


Links for these books:


PD Stuart "Codeword Barbelon" (2008) (links for which I hadn't provided in my two recent emails):

http://www.amazon.com/Codeword-Barbelon-Danger-Vatican-Domination/dp/0954359666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294406079&sr=1-1

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/2009/12/vatican-assassins-store/ (Yes! Believe it or not Eric Phelps promotes one of the key works that expose George Washington as a tool of Rome that I have drawn upon, yet I - who am making not a single penny for agreeing with PD Stuart - am the one called a Jesuit! That's a bit rich I would say - or should that be (18th Jesuit Superior General - 18 = 3 x 6 = 666) "Ricci"?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Codeword-Barb%C3%AAl%C3%B4n-Domination-Illustrated-Paperback/dp/0954359666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294406899&sr=8-1


Tupper Saussy "Rulers of Evil" (1999) (out of print, but available used).

1st edition (this is the copy that I have):

http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0967376807/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294407153&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0967376807/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294407016&sr=1-2

2nd edition (same text I believe):

http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0066210836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294407194&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rulers-Evil-Useful-Knowledge-Governing/dp/0066210836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294406988&sr=1-1


John Daniel "Grand Design Exposed" (1999)

http://seawaves.us/daniel/shame.html

http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com/Part%205.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Exposed-John-Daniel/dp/B000QJOUF6 (use this latter link for review only, as price is about double that at other links).


TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 01:51 AM (GMT)
I'm sorry Troy but I believe you're wrong and Eric is correct and I'm sure he'll continue to prove it as he goes along with his ten part series.

TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 01:51 AM (GMT)
I'm sorry Troy but I believe you're wrong and Eric is correct and I'm sure he'll continue to prove it as he goes along with his ten part series.

TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 01:53 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TheUnhivedMind @ Jan 11 2011, 01:51 AM)
I'm sorry Troy but I believe you're wrong and Eric is correct and I'm sure he'll continue to prove it as he goes along with his ten part series.

Topic: On King James the 6th of Scotland/James 1st of England, Part 1

http://www.mediafire.com/file/yjas41j0l0zgiz1/Eric Jon Phelps - January 07, 2011.mp3

http://www.sendspace.com/file/fpjx18

TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 02:00 AM (GMT)
Dear Craig,

The following is my response to Troy.

Please post.

For me, the topic is now closed. I have answered all of his claims and points, several of his points being very good.

But I still must conclude Troy is a Jesuit Coadjutor repeating mantras of the Order uttered many times before in Rome's attempt to move the Lord's Church away from the final production of the Word of God in English, utterly condemned by the Jesuits and still on the Index Expurgatorious of the Inquisition. He is Counter Reformation all the way and this is the last address of mine regarding his continued advance against the English Protestant Reformation that birthed the White Protestant/Baptist Republic of American in 1789.

Lord Bless,

Brother Eric


----- Original Message -----
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Time for a debate on your show it seems?

--- On Fri, 1/7/11, TS wrote:

From: TS
Subject: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Cc: "Antonio Mundaca" , "Barry Chamish" , "Boris Groenmeyer" , "Brent Willis - "B"" , "Chris "Conspiracy Clothes" White" , "Dan Tatman" , "Douglas A. Willinger" , "Freeman Fly (The Freeman Pespective)" , "Greg Farber" , "Greg Szymanski" , "Maxi Aguaisol" , "Mike/ Avenue of Light" , "Oliver Quintessenz" , "Pascal Cormier (Alberto-Chiniquy Legacy)" , "Philip AE Jonkers" , "red ice creations" , "Richard Hershey" , "Leo Zagami"
Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:45 AM

ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA

Dear Craig

King James was no Protestant (he was a crypto-Catholic & aligned with that Roman carbon-copy Church of England) & has nothing to do with the foundation of Protestant Western Civilization (the usurpation of it by Jesuit-loyal forces - yes!). He was a Papal Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, overseen (until 1602) by Roman Catholic "General Warden of the Craft" William Schaw - who between them were the first two Jesuit emissaries who sought to infiltrate & control Scottish Freemasonry (not the "Scottish" Rite, which was a product of Jesuit/Stewart intrigues in France via Prussia & onto the USA eventually) - that branch of the Templars who were still then hostile to the Roman/Jesuit nexus. Schaw was seminal in forming James ongoing crypto-Romish mindset - which manifested in his actions & inactions & was thinly covered by his rhetorical, propagandist writings.

Agreed. Schaw was a Masonic Roman Catholic agent of the Jesuits, the Order hoping to replace the deceased, pro-Reformation Queen Elizabeth I with Roman Catholic James Stuart, the son of the traitor, Mary Stuart Queen of Scots. Elizabeth I had once again expelled the Order in 1602, thus they sought legal reentrance into England via their King of Scotland, James VI, waiting in the wings to be "named" King of Great Britain. In the light of Dorothy and Charlton Ogborn's epic masterpiece, This Star of England (1952), it is clear that "William Shakespeare" was in fact Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Lord Great Chamberlain to the Queen. ("Shakespeare" was not Francis Bacon, as Chris Pinto and others would have us to believe!) Further, the Ogborns prove that Elizabeth I and de Vere (the greatest swordsman in all England, hence "Shake spear") were secretly engaged at which time she conceived a son later known as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Henry, like his father, would be a staunch Protestant, later responsible for successfully opposing the Order's conspiracy within the primarily Roman Catholic House of Lords to give the Virginia Colony to Jesuit-ruled, Roman Catholic Spain. Knowing that the Queen had a lawful heir, the Order, via Robert Cecil (his father, Willilam being also a traitor for Rome, he having sought to marry the Queen to several Roman Catholic monarchs, while he also stole de Vere's 86 landed estates via Edward's forced marriage to Cecil's daughter!), had to make sure Elizabeth would name Jamesas her successor, rather than son Henry. Therefore, while Elizabeth lay dying, she suppossedly whispered into the ear of Robert Cecil the name of the man to take her throne. Robert Cecil declared she designated Presbyterian "James," and the Order was now on track to return England to the Temporal Power of the pope of Rome via this pro-Catholic Presbyterian monarch.

But the risen Son of God would foil this plot, turning the heart of James to true salvation in Christ evidenced by his subsequent deeds during his early kingship. First we must remember that William Schaw had not one day of influence over James the I, Schaw dying in 1602. Thus, the assertion that this Jesuit Coadjutor had any influence over King James I is totally ungrounded. Apparently the risen Son of God killed him, as the Lord was planning to use James for another purpose that would effect the entire world bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. In spite of being trained by the godly Presbyterian George Buchanan, the real negative influences upon James VI were profligate Roman Catholic relatives Esme Stuart and Captain James Stuart who imbibed young James with the Jesuitaical doctrine of absolute power. Thus, James became an enemy of Scottish Presbyterianism and its Kirk. Indeed, according to James A. Wylie, Esme Stuart and the Duke of Guise sought to use James to restore relations with France. Esme, aided by several Jesuits, sought to destroy Presbyterian Protestantism, at the time, the greatest bulwork against divine right absolutism unlimited by the chartered rights of the people and Kirk of Scotland.

As to the claim that James and Schaw were Jesuit coadjutors who sought to infiltrate and control Scottish Freemasonry, this cannot be the case. Since the Jesuit Order is in fact the Order of the New Templars (i.e., the secretly revived Knights Templars only a thousand times worse), it is nonsense to believe the Scottish Templars were hostile to the Black Pope's quest in returning England to papal control. Loyola himself was a Spanish Templar, in league with the Templars of both England and Scotland, evidenced by his secret visit to England to converse with certain Roman Catholic royals about the time he established the Society of Jesus/Horus. Thus, Troy's claim to the contrary is incorrect.

As to James' pro-Catholic mindset, no doubt he was a tool of the Jesuits during his reign as the King of Scotland as covered by my January 7, 2011 Friday broadcast, but he will undergo a change after he becomes King of England/Great Britain that will result in four things:

1. His expulsion of the Jesuit Order from England and Scotland in 1604, thus building upon the Order's Expulsion by Elizabeth I in 1602.

2. His public burning of the theology of Jesuit Francisco Suarez justifing regicide.

3. His authorizing of the translation of a new English Bible in 1604 intended to unite both Protestant Scotland and England.

4. His promise to protect the Protestant faith and to prevent the Temporal Power of the pope from being re-established.

According to James A. Wylie, James now becomes a real enemy of Rome and her Jesuits. On page 526 of volume 3 of The History of Protestantism, Wylie states:

"They began to despair of the King of the Scots---prematurely, we think; but they were naturally more impatient than James, seeing the restoration of their church was with them the first object, whereas with James it was only the second, and the English crown was the first."

The conspirators sought the help of Pope Clement VIII who issued two bulls, one to the Romish priests and the other to the Romish nobility and laity, preventing any monarch from ascending the throne who will not further the power of the papacy. Further, help was sought from King Philp II having lost his Armada in 1588, he merely giving his ascent, but no financial or physical help. Thus the Jesuits, via Jesuit Provincial Henry Garnet, hatched out the plot to blow up Parliament, the king and his family in 1605.


So according to Eric I am a "Jesuit"?! Yes, black is white & white is black with Eric Phelps it seems. Perhaps he should apply to be the Black Pope's official director of the "Anti-Jesuit Movement", as he clearly seems to be displaying the necessary symbolic reversal techniques? Quite frankly - despite my central disagreements with Eric regarding James VI/I, the KJV & George Washington, I still had quite a bit of respect for Eric until reading that pathetic smear attempt. Pretty disappointing if not altogether unsurprising, considering my having rejected a number of Eric's "sacred cows". After discovering & reading the mountain of evidence against these two false heroes I could not go along with the cover stories enveloping them any longer.

I engaged in no pathetic smear attempt, but merely recited eight acts of Troy that benefit the Jesuit Order's Counter Reformation as did Tupper Saussy and his several conclusions in his Rulers of Evil. Troy does not fully address my facts but rather attacks me: "If you cannot refute the facts, then attack the man." Further, I have no sacred cows but am willing to make a change if proved wrong on any point. A mountain of evidence proving James was not saved, not a believer in the true Christ of the Reformation Bible after reading his Works? Was Solomon a pagan since he departed from the Lord and permitted the worship of false gods in Israel? My point concerning James is the same with Solomon, for which reason James is called "our English Solomon." Both had a good beginning in seeking to please the Lord in resisting Rome but later departed from the truth and served the designs of Rome. The same is true with Bible-believing Prince Bismarck; he had a good beginning, winning the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, creating the Protestant Second German Reich in 1871, and suppressing the Jesuits in 1872, but he later revoked the righteous anti-priest Falk Laws, and engaged in Rome's pillaging of "the Scramble for Africa" in 1885.

My advice to all truthseekers looking for the most accurate expose on James VI/I's pro-Romanism & details some (but by no means all) of his several subsequent Jesuit advisors is John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed"(Pp. 95, 224-245).

This pro-Catholic treason of King James occurs during the latter part of his reign. His refusal to go to war at the outbreak of the First Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) against the Catholic League and to fight on the side of the German Lutheran/Calvinist Protestant Union evidences his loyalty to the papacy. His closing of the Protestant English Parliament in 1621, the reasons Troy cites below being to enforce the anti-Catholic laws and to insist that Prince Charles not marry a Roman Catholic, further evidence James' loyalty to the Jesuit Grand Design for overthrowing Protestant England. His refusal to go to war with Spain, for which Cromwell castigates James in Parliament years later when Oliver was the Protector, further proves James' secret allegiance. And in 1624-25, Jamesprovides a warship for France to make war on the Huguenots of France, but the Protestant English sailors refuse to fire on their Protestant Calvinist brethren of Rochelle. James later arranges a marriage for his son to the French Roman Catholic Henrietta Maria, for which anti-Jesuit Japan breaks off all trade relations with Great Britain and his favorite adviser George Calvert who openly declared his Roman Catholicism in 1625, obviously was an agent for the Jesuits in furthering their plan of restoring the pope's Temporal Power. But all of these events transpire during the last 10 years of James' reign, when he was backslidden into the sin of serving Rome. These are not the events that characterized his early years from 1603 to 1615. James had a good beginning and a bad ending.

This book is available at the following links for those wishing to take the blinkers off:

http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com/Part%205.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Exposed-John-Daniel/dp/B000QJOUF6 (a bit more expensive at this latter link for reasons unknown).

This excellent & crucial reference work is also most excellent at revealing Order of Cincinnati/Royal Arch Mason George Washington's Romanist leanings & Jesuit connections - as is that other most scholarly Jesuit-exposing history book P.D. Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon" (which Eric ironically sells on his website).

I recommend both books; I know John Daniel personally as he called me and thanked me for publishing VA. Stuart's work is excellent save for his Romaizing of Washington (premised upon a Jesuit lie with no historical data recorded in 18th or 19th century histories) as does Saussy as does Pinto. To outrightly reject these works is to deviate from the maxim necessary for true research: Eat the meat and throw away the bones. There is no irony about it. Washington was no supermason as I prove in my book, that he did not enter a masonic lodge but once or twice during the last 30 years of his life, the Order of Cincinnati in that day being merely a miliary order for former Revolutionary War officers, that Washington openly opposed the Illuminati that he said had not overtaken American Freemasonry. I further have proved that Washington was poisoned by Tobias Lear V, the agent of Thomas Jefferson and enemy of George referred as our American Joshua by the learned and godly President of Yale College, Ezra Stiles.

If I am a Jesuit, then so is John Daniel & PD Stuart - by Eric's standards. Let people think what they will - but let them be given all of the available sides to the story first. Why is Eric's version of all events of history (which includes covering up the Catholic complicity of James VI/I & George Washington - for reasons best known to Eric himself) the only "acceptable" version of events? Can Eric name one Jesuit asset that I have covered up & gatekeepered the activities of? Nope! But I have named two of the big ones & he dislikes this so much that he calls me a "Jesuit". Nice try but really - very weak & pitiful. The "my way or the highway" attitude says more about the critic than the one who is criticised.

Disageed. Daniel and Stuart are deceived; Troy has established a pro-Jesuit pattern of works as did King James during the latter years of his reign. Troy has not answered my eight points leading to the conclusion of him being a Jesuit Coadjutor. Additionally he sows discord between other brethren in my association including Marco and Maxi. Troy has unnecessarily insulted Marco calling him a "Jesuit fag." Further, Troy does not believe any translation of the Bible is the Word of God, he denies the importance of Baptist Captain John Gano baptizing Washington in the Hudson River in 1783, Washington giving his sword to Gano, ad infinitum! Troy has an agenda based upon his several works I have cited. The most pitiful trait paraded by Troy is his lack of a solution to the question of the destruction of White Protestant England. If the AV1611 is a Jesuit fraud; if there is no translation that is the Word of God, then how can England ever be raised to greatness once again, resisting the Temporal Power of the Pope and his EU? Troy has no answers since he disbelievs the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and his misunderstanding of Protestant history. Shall we next expect an attack upon the great Purtian Oliver Cromwell who quoted the AV1611 throughout his letters as proven by Carlisle?

Eric's writings on historical matters & those pertaining to more contemporary goings on have great value & I do not recommend that they are dismissed by any means. Far from it. However, they do not & should not exist in a vacuum & books such as those listed above should be given equal weight & value & concerning the info that they bring forth on James VI/I (in "Grand Design Exposed") & George Washington (in "G.D.E." & "Codeword Barbelon") they should in my humble opinion be given far greater weight, as their conclusions are the same as mine reached independently, their information & mine complementing & fleshing out the reality behind the foundation myths of these two characters.

They have been considered and weighed with the conclusions of other books written closer to the time of the men under examination. My concern is the Jesuit Counter Reformation Grand Design to destroy the reputation of the illustrious George Washington (surrounded with Calvinist preachers during the war), to destroy the names of the real founding fathers of the American Republic (1789-1868), to make King James I a Jesuit Coadjutor from the day he set foot in England, to paint him as an unbeliever inspite of his Works published in 1616, to portray Cromwell as a tyrant and a usuperer, to portray the Gunpowder Plot as a conspiracy of James and Cecil rather than the Jesuit Garnet (as does Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Webster Tarpley), to utterly ruin the reputation of the moving men of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, etc.) as well as the Reformation's greatest statesmen, though they weakened during the finishing of their offices, etc. Troy doesn't get it and if he continues will be held accountable for his libel and slander of the men who gave him his freedom of speech by which he expresses his erroneous, intolerant, inconsiderate and unbibilcal views.

A brief summary of my issues with James for those who want a quick overview (utilising selections from posts of mine at the Unhived Mind to minimise needless retyping:

All of James' words are but as the chaff which the wind bloweth away (Psalms 1:4) compared to his actions & non-actions which say it all:

* Replacing the Bible of the Reformation, the Geneva Bible with his authorised official crown/state version.

Interesting. Even the Puritans after time abandoned the Geneva Bible in favor of the AV1611 due to its superior prose and melodic verse necessary for easy memorization---as the 47 translators intended. The Order has never launched an attack against the Geneva Bible, rather against the AV1611 as per their words found in Leone's The Jesuit Conspiracy.

* Forcing Catholic practices upon Protestants: see the Five Articles of Perth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Perth &http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_475.html ).

This transpired in 1616 and consumnated in 1621. As previously stated, this transpired during the last half of his kingship when he was in the grips of the Jesuits. This is evidence of his bad ending in contrast to his good beginning.

* Dissolving English Parliament in 1621 after being challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war against Roman Catholic Spain & for the demand that his son Charles, Prince of Wales to marry a Protestant - rather than his preference, the Roman Catholic Spanish Infanta, Maria: see the Spanish Match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_VI#Spanish_match )

Again, this was in the latter part of his reign.

As for the Gunpowder Plot:

QUOTE

cui bono?

exclamation
who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to whom (is it) a benefit?’



Hmm, seems to fit the time frame for the words origin just perfectly too. So who did benefit?

King James himself:

Nonsense! This is in complete violation of the historical record given by the foremost Protestant historians of the Reformation (Wylie, D'Aubigne, Mosheim, etc.). Further, it is proven that King Henry IV of France alerted James of the plot, yet another reason the Order killed the Frenchman in 1610. The Jesuits really wanted to blow up Parliament as proven by Wylie, a superior in history to both of us.

His spymaster Sir Robert Cecil (1st earl of Salisbury) successfully managed to extract one of the highest royal subsidies ever from Parliament in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot. He also had the perfect cover for implementing pro-Roman actions & avoiding the enforcement of anti-Roman ones, while mouthing anti-Roman rhetoric, thus acting as the perfect tool for the Jesuits this side of the English Channel.

Jesuit expelled in 1604 by James; Jesuit tried for the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and fully proved guilty in 1606 by Coke; had Westminster been destroyed, the AV1611 would never have been completed---a Jesuit goal; yes, Robert Cecil was a Jesuit Coadjutor as was his father William in the court of Elizabeth, but the Puritans kept both of them from runaway treason for the papacy.

The Jesuits themselves in both the short & the long term:

- Through the High Commssion's ruthless & brutal suppression of the Protestant Reformers (as opposed to the Church of England Conformers) & the Protestant Geneva Bible & via King James carefully minimising repression of Catholics, with the Anti-Catholic laws being a thin "smoke screen".

The king indeed persecuted the Puritans for which reason many left for the new world during his reign. And I will ceed the fact that Bancroft may well have been a Jesuit Coadjutor as was Archbishop Laud during the reign during the reign of Charles I. Clearly Laud was a Jesuit as proven by Augustus Toplady. Agreed, the Commission was terrible, but the Anglicans generally hated the Puritans who were the real targets of the Commission. This is sad and a terrible crime, yet the six separate groups of translators were not corrupted into completing an honest translation. My professor Dr. Rembert Carter, earning his Ph.D from Edinburgh, stated openly in class that the AV1611 was an honest translation. It was open to the public, and the work had to pass by six committes before it was approved. The purported 14 changes of Richard Bancroft did not corrupt the text and I challange Troy to prove otherwise. If you read the Dedication of the Transators, is it all lies or is it the heartfelt truth coming from the writer? Again, it is the AV1611 the Jesuits hate, not the Geneva Bible. Further it was a Puritan that called for a new translation before the king in 1604, Dr. John Rainolds. More can be read on the Commission at http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html

- The ability to eventually come to fully control the United Kingdom, facilitated by both James' Masonic structure (reworked by James' Grand Warden William Schaw) & the crypto-Catholic Church of England's monopoly on ecclesiastical matters, both entities eventually contributing greatly in different measures to the near-complete legal (compounded by the present financial) destruction of UK sovereignty & its spiritual weakening, leading to its amalgamation into the Jesuit-created Papal European Union.

This is a moot point. The present has nothing to do with this past record. Cromwell broke the chain that James and Charles I welded on the feet of the English Protestants. Charles II and James II restored that tyranny. William III broke that chain again, but the Hanoverian King George III restored that bondage and the English have been kept there since that time. When Britain abandoned the AV1611, the Empire began to be used for the purposes of Rome throughout the mid-nineteenth century. When America abandoned the AV1611 in about 1901 with the New American Standard Bible, the American Empire (1868-present) has been the utter tool of Rome in restoring the Temporal Power around the world aided by the British---thus the Pope's Anglo-American White Power Structure is in full swing. The infant Masonic Structure of James I has undergone changes so as to have it conform to the Jesuit Papacy.

Eric's claim that Bancroft was not on the AKJV translation committee is just plain wrong.

Strangely Eric seems to have completely forgotten this previous piece of correspondence which showed him to be as wrong then as he is now.

I note that Eric wasn't able to reply then - without showing his error, which instead he insists on repeating now. As Eric would say: "The question is why?"

Archbishop Richard Bancroft was not on the Second Cambridge Committee. Both the Translator's Revived by McClure and Final Authority by Dr. William Brady do not list Bancroft on any committee. True, he had oversight, but he did not participate in any of the work save a purported 14 changes to the text after completion---which I would like to see documented. Thus, though a potential Jesuit coadjutor insisting upon the inclusion of the pope's Jewish-fabled Apocropha, God kept him from corrupting the work.

ARCHBISHOP RICHARD BANCROFT, KING JAMES VI/I'S K.J.V. CHIEF OVERSEER/TASK-MASTER, TRANSLATOR & HIGH COMMISSION COURT ENGLISH INQUISITION "RULING SPIRIT"

Dear Eric

You write:

Bancroft was not a translator. Check the list.

&:

Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?


Bancroft was a Translator as well as the chief overseer of the project:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Committees

Committees
First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:
Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;
First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:
Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;
First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:
John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne;[53]
Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:
Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten;
Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:
William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;
Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:
John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.[54]
54. ^ (Bobrick 2001, pp. 223–244)

Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477

Clearly an error by Bobrick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Considerations_for_a_new_version_of_the_English_Bible

Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[52]

^ (Bobrick 2001, p. 257)

No corruption. The Greek word is episkopen meaning overseership/the office of an overseer. Hence bisopricke is fine and better for memorization.

Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477


Eric, as per your second question:

Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?


KJV Translators who were also members of the anti-Reformist, pro-Conformist High Commission English Inquisition included:

Richard Bancroft (with the Company who Translated the Apocrypha - let us note of the High Commission's love of the Apocrypha that: "In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367).")

Lancelot Andrewes (with the Company who Translated Genesis to 2 Kings)

George Abbot (with the Company who Translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles & the Book of Revelation)


More details here:

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html


Full list of sources here:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=33988&st=60#entry3459996


Alexander McClure wrote that Archbishop Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" ("The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible" (1853), p. 217).

In Christ -

Troy


P.S.: Please find below new & more detailed information on the interference of Bancroft on the KJV Translation that I had not read before tonight from a follow-up addendum to a series of pieces from which I have quoted before (& which themselves have more on Bancroft's High Commission Court English Inquisition orchestration, viewable at the following link but not posted in the text below) & which I now post for the edification of all interested parties:

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm


In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

Again, the work of the translators was not affected by Bancroft according to Whiston himself. This is the Providence of God overruling the Jesuit design of Bancroft. 14 places? No problem as to clarification.

Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).
KJV-only advocates may question the validity of Jessey's claim about changes reflecting Episcopal bias being introduced in the 1611, but this claim is likely based on a similar reported claim by someone who would have known firsthand, one of the KJV translators themselves. Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).

Again, not a problem, no text is corrupted. Excellent quote!

In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.

As stated, this cannot be proven that Jessey said an entirely new translation was necessary, over a mere 14 changes using synonymous words favoring prelacy and easily clarified? Ridiculous. God was keeping the work pure no matter how hard Bancroft tried to corrupt the work. God's intervention is evidenced by the AV1611 being taken to the ends of the earth for over 300 years and for which the Jesuits convened their Westcott and Hort Revision committee in the 1870s changing the AV1611 in over 30,000 places via a secret Jesuit Greek text that altered the TR in 5,788 places. That was your work of the Jesuits, not the production of the AV1611.

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).

Again, are we to believe these mere 14 changes corrupted the AV1611? Nonsense, once again. They are easily clarified by any student of Koine Greek, as all Bible teachers and Pastors should be for the defense of the AV1611.

Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7).

I Peter 2:13:

"to the king as supreme" is no corruption. This is exactly what the Greek says. But the word "ktisei" from which is translated "ordinance" could better be understood to be "institution" thereby clearing up the heresy that the Christian is to obey every law/ordinance theat is passed by government. But the word can be translated both ways as per Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 363. Again, no corruption.


Along with Henry Jessey and KJV translator Miles Smith, another man made a report about these changes. In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.

Same conclusion as above.

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

The Great London Fire of 1666 totally destroyed the notes of the AV1611 Committees. The Jesuits set this fire as proven by several works in my library and even a cartoon was made with a Jesuit blowing fire on London. No, the Jesuits hated the work of the AV1611 translators for God, using his men, foiled the plot of the Jesuits to corrupt the work. Ironically, every Puritan, Congregationalist, Baptist of the New World had abandoned the Geneva Bible and was using the AV1611 the Order had hoped would establish the primacy of the apostate Anglican Church. Glory to God. It 30,000 AV1611 Bibles that the Continental Congress printed for the American people in 1777. And it was the AV1611 about which President Andrew Jackson stated: "That book is the bedrock upon which this Republic rests." The AV1611 became the foundation of the American Federal Republic which became the greatest gospel-preaching and commercial nation on earth during the 19th century. God has blessed the AV1611 far above the Geneva, his Church preferring it for the last 300 years.

Genesis 50:20

Romans 8:28


- TS

Brother Eric Jon Phelps


On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:24, annunaki@fastmail.fm wrote:


On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:43:24 -0500, "Eric Phelps"
said:
Schaw died in 1602 and had nothing to do with the Protestant reign of
King
James.

Bancroft was not on any of the committes of translation. No doubt James
persecuted the Puritans, but that had nothing to do with the translation
of
the text.

More lies from Jesuit Troy Space in his attempt to destroy the foundation
for White Protestant Western Civilization in accord with the Council of
Trent.

Brother Eric

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Eric Jon Phelps"
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: God's Secretaries: Reply to MP #2



On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:07:42 +0000, "TS" said:
The KJV was used to promote King James' Jesuit-infiltrated Masonic system
which he & his Roman Catholic Master of Works & General Warden of the
Craft William Schaw took to England when the Sinclairs said "up yours"
when he wanted to be Grand Master of Scotland - which system became the
Grand Lodge of England, later the United Grand Lodge of England, headed
today by the Duke of Kent who is married to a Catholic, who's son got
married as a Catholic in the Vatican in late 2006 & who's younger brother
Mark Mason Grand Master Prince Michael of Kent is married to the most
senior Dame in the British & Irish Delegation of the Pope's
Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order.

These guys & all within their lodge system have but one Bible - the King
James appropriately enough. The Jesuit-alligned Masonic British
Empire/Commonwealth hid behind its Christian face & committed bloodshed
everywhere it went. Ah, but God bless King James! Which "God" was "using"
King James? The God of This World - Satan - it would seem. So God does
not coordinate events on Earth, Satan does. God will only intervene if we
ask him too & he deems it appropriate. We have given dominion over the
Earth to Satan when we ate the fruit in the Garden. Sin is selfishness,
selfishness is sin. If a whole bunch of bloodthirsty Rome-alikes prayed
to him to give them the new Bible that "God uses now" (sounds like a
celebrity endorsement), I think that we can safely say that they would
not have got passed the Son to get to him to give them a hearing.

KJV is "super safe"? "Super safe" sounds more like a condom type to me.
Agreed though that the NIV is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

On 28 Dec 2010, at 21:35, Marco Ponce wrote:

I recall all the verses you hit me with comparing Geneva to kjv and I
must say it is silly be it that kj was a this and that... Geneva was
used by God but the kjv even more. Give praise to God for preserving his
word.

Wanna see Jesuit per-version, look at the niv or the latest satanic
offering the common English bible with 5 Jesuits on staff. Kjv is super
safe and I feel what God is using now to spread his everlasting word.

On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:12 PM, TS wrote:

Tony: How can James VI/I, false God of faux-Reformation idolators
everywhere be considered to be anything other than the whitewashed
propaganda myth handed down to us to gobble up like hungry fools?

James VI/I surrounded himself with Jesuits like William Schaw &
assorted other Catholics, crypto-Catholics & Catholic sympathizers, a
number of which such as Bancroft, Abbott & Andrewes were on James'
Puritan-persecuting High Commission dishing out torture & death to
those who would not conform to James' preferred Roman Catholic
"opposame" Church of England. These were some of the key members of the
King James Bible translation committees. The Puritans were so pleased
that their most hated monarch & his Romish churchmen were offering to
replace the Geneva Bible with the KJV - Everyone knows that! The fact
that so many of them upped & went to America with their Geneva Bibles
was so that they were suffering from temporary insanity - why, who
would want to be far from dear King James??

It is of course sheer lunacy to deduce that he had Roman sympathies
from the fact that he dissolved Parliament in 1621 in response to being
challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war
against Spain (Roman Catholic Spain that is) & for his son the Prince
if Charles to marry a Protestant instead of the Spanish Infanta Maria.

Those Five Articles of Perth that he tried to ram down Scottish
Christians throats to make them partake in Romish practices - that
must've been a joke! Can't they take a joke those dour Scots?

No Good King James could do no wrong. The Vatican-alligned United Grand
Lodge of England & the Jesuit-created Scottish Rite love him - or his
Bible at least! Even Calvinists love him these days (as bizarre as it
might seem, but hey we are talking about a man whom no right-thinking
person must question the integrity & agenda of). Heck, if if he's good
enough for the Jesuits (despite the weak protestations based on
specious quotes to the contrary) & friends, then let's join in on the
praisefest!



On 28 Dec 2010, at 18:35, Tony Mundaca wrote:

actions speak louder than words.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPHjJ7ahcA8






From: marcoponce@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 05:41:36 -0800
Subject: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org; voxrick@yahoo.com; troy_space@me.com;
annunaki@fastmail.fm; dmaxi_gsl@hotmail.com; chamish@netvision.net.il;
waltpatclifford@gmail.com; gregbeacon@gmail.com;emmandey@hotmail.com;
mrsjanesteele@gmail.com; lennybloom@gmail.com; nowcomex@yahoo.com;
bundesligagun7@sbcglobal.net; fanne_24@hotmail.com;
TonyMundaca@msn.com;thelordsprivateer@yahoo.com;
contacto@lagranconspiracion.com; doug.brehm@yahoo.com;
dattaniamit@gmail.com; akjvtruth@yahoo.com

ATTACHED IS ONE AWESOME EBOOK :)

The King James Bible remains the most influential Bible translation of
all time. Its elegant style and the exalted cadences of its poetry and
prose echo forcefully in Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot and Reynolds
Price. As travel writer Nicolson points out, however, the path to the
completion of the translation wasn't smooth. When James took the
throne in England in early 1603, he inherited a country embroiled in
theological controversy. Relishing a good theological debate, the king
appointed himself as a mediator between the Anglicans and the
reformist Puritans, siding in the end with the Anglican Church as the
party that posed the least political threat to his authority. As a
result of these debates, James agreed to commission a new translation
of the Bible as an olive branch to the Puritans. Between 1604 and
1611, various committees engaged in making a new translation that
attended more to the original Greek and Hebrew than had earlier
versions. Nicolson deftly chronicles the personalities involved, and
breezily narrates the political and religious struggles of the early
17th century. Yet, the circumstances surrounding this translation are
already well known from two earlier books-Benson Bobrick's Wide as the
Waters and Alister McGrath's In the Beginning-and this treatment adds
little that is new. Although Nicolson succeeds at providing insight
into the diverse personalities involved in making the King James
Bible, Bobrick's remains the most elegant and comprehensive treatment
of the process.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293543175&sr=8-1

Well Writen History
Most KJV books are written from a purely religious perspective. "God's
Secretaries" is written from a primarily secular point of view.

TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 02:36 AM (GMT)
Troy tried to turn me against the King James Bible and I fell for it. I partially blame Eric Phelps for my mistake as he should have given me more to work upon before making my conclusions at the time. We wanted all this Geneva vs King James AV1611 addressed many months back but Eric didn't respond at the time. I know if if had of back then as he is now then I would have stuck with the King James AV1611. Since Eric's information has come forth I can see he's correct and theres deception at play from some one or various peoples in a manipulating state against the Reformation and our movements cores. A divide and conquer tactic as in the collective we have become to powerful for our once masters who are now scared of our info inquisition back on them. Troy also tried to claim that he believed Thomas Richards was part of The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei. I couldn't believe this as I know Thomas is a normal guy like myself. In fact a guy who needs to move from his location if John Moore's information is correct haha. So whats going on? Are Jesuits at their games?

TheUnhivedMind - January 11, 2011 03:44 AM (GMT)

map - January 11, 2011 06:59 AM (GMT)
I NEED TO PLUG KING JAMES' VERY OWN WORDS AGAIN...

"Rome is the Seat of the Antichrist."
--King James VI & I
A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches 


"...Popery is in deed The mysterie of iniquitie..."
--King James VI & I

1605 Speech to Parliament

"The Pope is Antichrist..."
--King James VI & I

Meditation Upon Revelation 20:7-10


"Antichrist and his clergie...not only infect the earth...but rule also over the whole..."
--King James VI & I

Meditation Upon Revelation 20:7-10

"...blinde superstition of their errors in Religion... led them to this device [The Gunpowder Plot]..."
--King James VI & I
1605 Speech to Parliament

"The Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created..."
--King James VI & I
A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches

"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
--King James VI & I
A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches


"Christ did not promise...to leave Peter with them to direct and instruct them in all things; but he promised to send the holy Ghost for that end."
--King James VI & I
A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches

"The ground of all true...religion, and...service... that brings salvation...is to bee situate in Jesus Christ onely...Act. 4:12..."
--King James VI & I
Meditation Upon I Chron. 15:25-29


"...as soone as his Maiestie dealt against the Pope, tooke the Cardinall in hand, made the world see the usurped power of the one, and the Sophistry of the other...what a stirre we had; what roaring of the wild Bulls of Basan, what a commotion in every Countrey..."
--James (Bishop of Winton & Publisher of The Workes)

Preface to the Reader, The Workes of King James VI & I

Full Title: The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince Iames, By the Grace of God, King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith
Published in 1616. Two additional Workes were appended in 1620.
Above quotes taken from Workes page numbers: 310, 504, 78, 75, 503, 304, 316, 306, 86, [d2]

http://books.google.com/books?id=CCa7-IVqhbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

map - January 11, 2011 07:05 AM (GMT)
My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. - Extreme Oath of the Jesuits

THEY WILL EVEN ACT LIKE PROTESTANTS AND TALK BADLY OF CATHOLICISM AND POPE!

Phazon - January 11, 2011 08:26 AM (GMT)
If Troy is indeed a Jesuit, this makes me further wonder about Zagami who Troy has been so advocative of.

servant of truth - January 11, 2011 09:04 AM (GMT)
He certainty is not one, I dont see why he is being called one for a disagreement on which is at the end of the day a pretty minor point

Was King James loyal to the Rome or Not? I dont know, but the truth is often found halfway where there is strong evidence in both camps (kind of like saved by grace or works, its both, if you have the true grace of God you have works too by that same grace, faith without works is dead)

I'm quite sure he wasn't a true christian, how can you belong to the whores sister (Anglicanism) and be saved??

why is there such honor bestowed to persons belonging to wicked religious systems? especially Rome connected ones?

Is it not possible king James went against Rome for reasons other than standing up for what is right. Maybe he wanted more power for himself and therefore expelled the Jesuits?

Troy is one of the few people that always dead on in terms of his biblical views and what the bible teaches though it goes against the generally excepted view. A prime example being 'the bible is the Word of God' Really??? where in the BIBLE is that?? quote verse please someone!!!

Its a book that was INSPIRED by God to lead us to Christ, that's it. How can the word of god (Christ) be contained in paper and ink???

How did the early Christians get by without the 'written word of god'
because they had Christs spirit inside them that's why, they worshiped God In SPIRIT and in truth.

Anyway Troys one of the few that I have heard speak this, hes got guts and accurate information to back up what he says.

As far zagami goes, troy doesn't force all the garbage he speak down our throats, but seems to share the more accurate information which is fine, and I dont think Troy even trusts him.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by [B]inspiration[B] of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

anton - January 11, 2011 01:03 PM (GMT)
From King James:

I am [he begins] such a Catholike Christian, as beleeveth the three Creeds; that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nicaea, and that of Athanasius.

King James Agreed With:

The Council of Nicae (325)
The Council of Constantinople (381)
The Council of Ephesus (431)
The Council of Chalcedon (451)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfJ1EkD7Eg


2 comments:

Amish said...

It seems KJ accomplished two things for the Pope 1) got rid of the Geneva Bible notes, and 2) got rid of many Protestants from England by shipping them to the New World colonies.

The Bible translation came earlier than the KJV, so no corruption is found.

The final video of the post addresses Easter in the KJV. As The Answer Book shows Easter is a correct translation as this was the Roman holiday at the time.

As for founding the Colonies, we own King James for founding our Protestant land (and Queen Elizabeth I). Not until King Charles was the Catholic colony Maryland created.

Amish said...

Alas, God uses Satan himself to fulfill his plans for us.