Letter #40
Home Up Letter #2 Letter #3 Letter #4 Letter #5 Letter #6 Supplement Letter #7 Letter #8 Letter #9 Letter #10 Letter #11 Letter #12 Letter #13 Letter #14 Letter #15 Letter #16 Letter #17 Letter #18 Letter #19 Letter #20 Letter #21 Letter #22 Letter #23 Letter #24 Letter #25 Letter #26 Letter #27 Letter #28 Letter #29 Letter #30 Letter #31 Letter #32 Letter #33 Letter #34 Letter #35 Letter #36 Letter #37 Letter #38 Letter #39 Letter #40 Letter #41 Letter #42 Letter #43 Letter #44 Letter #45 Letter #46 Letter #47 Letter #48 Letter #49 Letter #50 Letter #51 Letter #52 Letter #53 Letter #54 Letter #55 Letter #56 Letter #57 Letter #58 Letter #59 Letter #60




Monthly Letter #40; August, 2001 By: Teacher Clifton A. Emahiser

1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830; Ph. (419)-435-2836


ISRAEL Covenant Two Seedline Racial IDENTITY




This is my fortieth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. At the time I am preparing this teaching letter, various people have been inquiring of me what my opinion is of the curious new calendar which Pete Peters is promoting. I would advise anyone not to be gullible, but prove all things as we are instructed to do in Scripture. I believe it would be prudent to exercise some caution on so drastic a proposition. I will tell you this: I have to question anything that might come out of the Pete Peters camp, as we are admonished not to appoint any of the “mixed multitude” to give us guidance. It was the “mixed multitude” which followed us out of Egypt that gave us all kinds of problems, and we still have a “mixed multitude” with us today. As for Israel’s calendar, it is spelled out quite clearly in the Bible. There was no problem with it in the time of Yahshua, for He was the Passover Lamb, and was sacrificed exactly at the proper time. If I ever find the time, I intend to put together a study and address this matter, but for now, the subject of Two Seedline is paramount. According to the proponents of this new, strange calendar, “God will kill you if you don’t keep it” (shades of the Babylonian priesthood). It is my considered opinion that Pete Peters has lost most of his credibility by criticizing the Two Seedline doctrine, and now he is desperately trying to gain it back by this spectacular, new revelation.


In my last teaching letter (#39), I discussed at some length the requirements of the ancient scribes. We found it was a vocation where one had to be able to write and speak in several languages. It was discovered that a scribe was usually trained from his mother’s arms, sometimes as early as four to six years old. From this, we can see in the case of Moses, he was practically assigned to be a scribe for the Pharaoh’s household as soon as he was out of diapers. Not only this, but Moses was probably in line to become a pharaoh himself. This may seem like a brash statement, but I believe the Bible bears this out. Hebrews 11:23-27 says:


“23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of Yahweh, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of the anointed [his brethren] greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.”


It should be noted the translators used the word “Christ” in verse 26. In this particular verse, it should have been his Israelite brethren as in I Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15. Acts 7:20 helps fill in some of the account of Moses’ scribal training:


“20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months: 21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. 22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.”


It should be pointed out that the only reason for such extensive training in Egypt, which would include scribal training, would be for the purpose of placing him on Egypt’s throne. When we begin to understand this, we then begin to comprehend what it was that Moses gave up in order to protect his afflicted brethren. And, did his brethren understand? No, just like today, they were ready to turn him over to the Egyptian authorities (v. 25). But a further question must be asked: what Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter would have had the incentive to rescue and adopt Moses as her own son? And, what was her reason for doing this?


It’s simply amazing; we read these various passages in the Bible, but don’t seem to be able to recognize what is being said. For instance, we read in Acts 7:20, (quoted above), that Moses “was exceeding fair” and never consider the implications. This is saying that Moses was a WHITE child. And, yet, the television evangelists and mainstream churchianity proclaim Moses was a swarthy complexioned “Jew.” All you hear them say is: “Abraham the Jew”; “Isaac the Jew”; “Jacob the Jew”; “Joseph the Jew”; “Moses the Jew”; “Joshua the Jew; “Samuel the Jew”; “Jeremiah the Jew”; “Isaiah the Jew”; “Ezekiel the Jew”; “Daniel the Jew”; “Hosea the Jew”; “John the Baptist, the Jew”; “Paul the Jew” and “Jesus the Jew.”


While we are on the topic of the “Jews”, let’s see what the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has to say about the term “Jew”; the Greek word #2453 on page 306:


“... The apostle John, inasmuch as agreeably to the state of things in his day he looked upon the Jews as a body of men hostile to Christianity, with whom he had come to see that both he and all true Christians had nothing in common as respects religious matters, even in his record of the life of Jesus not only himself makes a distinction between the Jews and Jesus, but ascribes to Jesus and his apostles language in which they distinguish themselves from the Jews, as though the latter sprang from an alien race: John 11:8; 13:33. And those who (not only at Jerusalem, but also in Galilee, cf. 6:41, 52) opposed his divine Master and his Master’s cause, esp. the rulers, priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees,— he does not hesitate to style @Ę z3@L*"Ă@4, since the hatred of these leaders exhibits the hatred of the whole nation towards Jesus: [John] 1:19; 2:18,20; 5:10, 15 sq. 18; 6:41, 52; 7:1, 11, 13; 9:18, 22; 10:24, 31, 33 ...”


A word of caution: While The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates is quite accurate on most Greek words, he doesn’t do a very good job on #2453, “Jew.” Another word of caution: Just because a person purports to be Israel Identity is no indication that he understands what I have just quoted from the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament concerning the “Jews”, #2453. Ted R. Weiland is a case in point. Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? erroneously tries to prove the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites on page 68 where he makes the following statement:


“Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelites


On page 94, Ted R. Weiland continues to try to establish his false premise when he says:


“The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seed line of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/ Israel.”


Evidently, Ted R. Weiland never read Josephus, Wars 2:8: 2. Josephus makes it quite clear the Pharisees and Sadducees, for the most part, were not necessarily Israelites of the Tribe of Judah by birth. Let’s now read Josephus, Wars 2:8:2:


“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.” [Essenes spelled Essens here.]


It would appear from this that of these three mentioned, only the Essenes could essentially claim to be pure blooded Israelites. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews [Judah] by birth? Although there were a couple of true Israelites on the Sanhedrin who were of the Pharisee sect, as a whole, the Pharisees were not Israelites by birth. I made a copy of Josephus’ Wars 2:8:2 and sent it to Weiland, but he is being strangely quiet about it.






We left off with our step by step walk with Israel’s sojourn in Egypt at the end of letter #37 with Tuthmosis III. With this pharaoh, we are getting a little ahead of our story, as we really need to elaborate more on his predecessor, the female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut. This is the lady that would have had all the incentive for adopting Moses into the Pharaoh’s household. I covered the lady Pharaoh Hatshepsut to a great extent in both lessons #32 and #37. In lessons #31 and 32, I explained how Moses’ name was derived from the line of pharaohs whose names ended in “mosis”, like in Kamose, Amosis, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III etc. Surely this is not just a coincidence, for several historians have observed this similarity of names. As Moses was adopted by pharaoh’s daughter, surely he would receive the pharaoh’s family name. Hatshepsut’s unique position in Egyptian history makes her a very good candidate for being the one rescuing Moses from a watery grave.


If you will remember, Hatshepsut was the last of a line having purely royal blood in the House of Pharaoh. We can also be pretty sure that she was of the line of Shem. If you will also remember, the Bible narrative relates that the Egyptian pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:


“Concerning Beth-Shemesh, and we may have discussed this, and from your letters certainly you see it, but I am compelled to discuss it again here. ‘Shemesh’, I am convinced is surely a double-extendre. For the word means ‘sun’ in Hebrew, obvious from the Greek translation ‘Heliopolis’ which means ‘city (polis) of the sun (helios)’, but also, and just as well in palaeo Hebrew, means ‘people of Shem.’ For the people of Shem are the ‘light of the world’ (Matt. 5:14), and just like the ancient Pharaohs, Yahshua is represented as the source of light, Rev. 21:23; John 1:4-9; 8:12; Rev. 22:16.


“About this Greek word »84@l, helios, Strong’s 2246 ‘hay-lee-os’ which means ‘the sun’, I am certain it is simply a version of the following Hebrew words: 1966 heylel ‘hay-lale’ from 1984 ... the morning star: lucifer. 1984 halal ‘haw-lal’ a primitive root ‘... to shine ...’ which of course gives us ‘halo’, halogen, etc.”


From this explanation, we can see that the city of On, later called “Heliopolis” by the Greeks actually means the “the city of the sun.” We can also see, although it was called this, it was in no way the worship of the “sun” as was the case in some pagan religions. Later, Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) would usurp this symbol of the “sun” to proclaim himself as the Almighty. From this we can also see why Satan himself has usurped the symbol of the “sun” making out he is the “shining one” or “the bright and morning star.” We can see, too, why the enemy (the genetic seed of Satan through Cain) have adopted the term “holders of the light” when they formed the “Jewish” Illuminati in 1776. We can also see why, when the translators translated the Greek text to Latin, they used the Latin term, Lucifer, meaning the “shining one.” Therefore, today, we have the true “shining One” and the counterfeit “shining one”, or “light-bearing ... morning-star” (Junior Classic Latin Dictionary, page 67). II Corinthians 11:14 says this: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Our problem today is: there are a whole bunch of people who are convinced the false, Satanic “Jewish light” is the “true light”, and this is exactly what churchianity is teaching. Not only that, but the anti-seedliners are aiding and abetting the false “Jewish light.” The anti-seedliners are actually giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, and you can’t get any more traitorous than that. I believe it is high-time that people in Israel Identity get out of bed with, and stop supporting these Judas traitors. It is only when we begin to demand truth that they are going to start telling the truth. I have one prisoner on my mailing list who wrote me he had torn up Ted R. Weiland’s book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? and thrown it in the trash. He indicated, if he would had had the money, he would have sent it back to Weiland and let him know what he thought of it. Oh, yes, the fence-straddlers on Two Seedline sit on the sidelines and proclaim we must all get along with each other: that there is strength in numbers. Why didn’t Yahweh explain that to Gideon? When do we begin to compromise with traitors?




In lesson #29, we got onto the subject of a people called Hurrians. These peoples were the same as the Bible Horites from whom Esau took at least one wife. In lesson #37, we covered the exploits of Tuthmosis I, and how he made an incursion into Mittani, the land of the Hurrians. The usual practice in those days was to bring back some women as booty. It wasn’t really until Tuthmosis III that the Egyptians brought Hurrian women back to Egypt in quantity. Anyway, bad blood got into the bloodline of the Egyptian pharaohs, and Hatshepsut was the last of a royal line from Shem. If this is true, we can see why Hatshepsut, as the daughter of Tuthmosis I, would take Moses to raise, for she would have known he was of pure Shemitic blood. No doubt, she could see in Moses a possible husband for one of her daughters. This is probably what she was doing when she took the throne herself in order to prevent her half-blood nephew, Tuthmosis III, a child by a non-royal mother, from taking the throne. It would appear she was simply buying time until this could happen. If this scenario is correct, we have the enmity of the seed of the serpent trying to destroy the seed of the woman in Egypt at that time.




While we are considering Queen Hatshepsut, we really should contemplate some of the things that resulted from her administration. During her rule, there were many building projects in Egypt. While these building projects were secondary in magnitude to those of Ramesses II, The Great, Queen Hatshepsut’s were by far of greater importance. Let’s now take a look at a Bible prophecy which addresses some of her achievements. It is found in Jeremiah 43:13:


“He [Nebuchadrezzar, (Nebuchadnezzar) the king of Babylon] shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.”


In order to understand the context of this verse it is necessary to study the entire chapter. Even then, unless we check each individual Hebrew word, we can be led into error. From what we read in this verse, it might appear that somehow Nebuchadnezzar is going to take a sledgehammer and break all the Egyptian obelisks into small pieces. But when we consult the Hebrew, an entirely different picture of this verse presents itself. This is one Hebrew word which is not covered in Gesenius’ so we will have to rely on Strong’s. If you will go to Strong’s, #7665 in the Hebrew, it will tell you something like this:


“... shabar ... a primitive root; to burst (literally or figuratively):— (down, off, in pieces, up) broken ([-hearted]), bring to birth, crush, destroy, hurt, quench, X quite, tear, view [by mistake for 7663].”


If you will check the LXX on this verse, you will find it is translated in the same vein of thought. It is quite apparent the Hebrew word is a mistake here, for historically, this is not at all what happened to the obelisks at Bethshemesh. The only other Hebrew word which might fit it here is #7666. Don’t let anyone ever tell you the Masoretic text Hebrew we have today doesn’t have any mistakes in it. This is a perfect example that it does. Let’s now take a look at #7666:


“... shabar ... the same as 7667; denominative from 7768; to deal in grain:— buy, sell.” [to distribute]


#7666 describes perfectly what happened historically to the obelisks which were at Bethshemesh in Egypt. Here is a model example which demonstrates that we must sometimes rely on context rather than the letter. Not that the original Hebrew was in error, but the Hebrew we have today has been undoubtedly corrupted through the ages. Now let’s examine the history of this thing. To start this, I will quote from The Destiny Of The British Empire And The U.S.A. by the pseudonym of The Roadbuilder”, page 51:


“Well, what about a waymark for the younger brother, Ephraim (England)?  Has he a totem pole showing where he came from? He surely has. In 1819 Mehemet Ali of Egypt presented Cleopatra’s Needle to the British Government. Why, I wonder? Why didn’t he give it to Italy, Germany, France, Russia or Spain? Apparently, when given, it was a white elephant; not the kind with a capacity ‘for eating hay all night and all day’, that de Wolf Hopper used to sing about, but still ‘some elephant.’ I can imagine the consternation among British officialdom on how to get the ‘beastly thing home’, because the wooden ships in those days were not built to carry elongated pebbles of its size on the open sea. Apparently it laid on the Egyptian sands for fifty-eight years after it was gifted unto the English, as the records show that in 1877 it was loaded into the special cylindrical ship built for it, and started for England, but was lost and supposed to have foundered in the Bay of Biscay. I had heard the Rev. Dr. Wild stating, from his pulpit, ‘that it would not be lost forever, but would yet be found and taken to England as a witness of God’s care and oversight for His chosen people Israel, located in the British or Covenant Isles.’


“Evidently the Creator and Governor of this world had a different plan for this waymark than dropping it to the bottom of the sea in Biscay Bay, for, after floating around for some weeks, wrecked and apparently lost, it was sighted, taken in tow, and finally landed at its destination, and to-day stands in the heart of the greatest city of the world, on the Thames Embankment, London, not only as a mark of the place of origin of Ephraim-Israel, but also of the brotherhood between the United States of America and Great Britain, offspring peoples of Joseph’s two sons, born in Egypt before the Exodus ... As children, the two lads played around these monuments, likely claimed one each, and to-day they have them in reality, one in London and the other in New York.


“For fear that the U.S.A. may kick at having only one waymark for so great a people, may I be permitted to point out that Great Britain and the U.S.A. have all Israel’s heraldry between them. In 1879 Rev. Joseph Wild, preaching in Brooklyn Church, N. Y., gave the marks of Manasseh possessed by the United States, and more recently the Rev. J. H. Allen, of California, has published a very readable small book The National Number and Heraldry of the United States of America ...


“Well, I started in on waymarks, and I’ve drifted away from them in these numerous sidelines, that to me are so interesting that I set them down, hoping they may help formulate your opinion as to who you are, where you come from, and what your job is.”


What “The Roadbuilder” is referring to here are the obelisks which were set up at Bethshemesh, the city of On, or Heliopolis in Egypt. To show you this is true, I will quote a short excerpt from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume M-P, page 535:


“... Jeremiah 43:13 predicts that Nebuchadrezzar will break the obelisks of Heliopolis (:/: (*"; KJV ‘Beth Shemesh’). Obelisks originally at Heliopolis have been taken to Rome and Istanbul and two to Alexandria, and then one of these two to London and one to New York. Only one remains at On.”


As you can plainly see, then, the way in which the obelisks of Bethshemesh were “broken” up is not at all like we are led to believe. You might check again and compare #7665 against #7666 in the Strong’s. Once we understand the true history of these “images”, we can realize how incorrect the Masoretic Hebrew text is in this case. If the Masoretic is wrong here, how many other places has it been corrupted? Sometimes the context must override the letter, and this is one of those places. On the matter of Joseph’s children playing around these obelisks, it is not clear how many of these obelisks might have been around during their time. These obelisks were not broken up in thousands of tiny pieces, but broken up as a group and dispersed throughout the world. Therefore, only #7666 can fit this description.




Eustace Mullins’ reputation and prestige as a thorough and painstaking, fact-finding researcher is beyond question. There are not many men of his calibre. While I agree with him for the most part, there are a few particulars where I don’t. I find his comments on Shem and Egypt very interesting, and I find his reasoning nearly in parallel with mine. I will reserve my observations for after his comments on this subject as found in his book The Curse Of Canaan, page 13:


“In the Greek language, Shem appears as Ehu; in Egyptian mythology, he is Shu, the son of Ra, the Sun God. It was through claimed descent from Shem that Louis, King of France, called himself the ‘Sun King.’ However, a much more important point, and one that has again been obscured or hidden by the priests who controlled the educational system throughout the last three thousand years, is the fact that it was Shem who founded and built the great civilization of Egypt.


“The rulers of Egypt were called Pharaohs, from the Hebrew word pira, meaning ‘long hair.’ The native Egyptians were short-haired. Not only was Shem long-haired, he was also fair-haired. In their records, the priests call Shem ‘Shufu’ or ‘Khufu’, which means long hair. Being a great warrior, Shem easily led his people in the conquest of the native Egyptians. He immediately set about to commemorate his reign by building the Great Pyramid at Gizeh. Babylon was then overcome by the son of Shem, Elam; a later descendant, Cyrus of Persia, an Elamite, completed the final conquest of Babylon and built the great Persian Empire. It was to signify his great military successes that Shem adopted as his symbol the lion, which is still the symbol of rulers today. The Great Pyramid was later called Khiut, the Horizon, in which Khufu had been swallowed up, as the western horizon swallowed up the sun each evening.”


If you will remember, in lesson #34, we covered Howard B. Rand, and how the Sphinxes in Egypt represented Shem and the Shepherd kings; having the head of a man and the body of a lion? Surely the ensign of the lion was an insignia of ruler-ship long before it was assigned to Judah by Jacob. We should also refrain from getting the Shepherd kings of Shem mixed up with the Hyksos which also falsely assumed the name of shepherd kings. The Shepherd kings of Shem were in Egypt many hundreds of years before the Hyksos.


The one point where I don’t agree with Mullins is the inference that the Shemites had long hair. It is true that the term pharaoh is similar to pira in Hebrew. Strong’s lists #6547, par-o, for this pharaoh. The term for hair is #6544, pera, and according to both Strong’s and  Gesenius’ is from the idea of shaving or to make naked rather than long hair. In other words, uncover, dismiss, perish or set at nought the long hair. According to the Standard Textbook Of Barbering, page 5:


“‘The History Of Barbering.’ The barber profession is one of the oldest professions in the history of the world. Some of the earliest written records of Egypt and China refer to the practice of barbering, and several passages of the Bible allude to barbers and their craft.”


According to the book The Archives of Ebla, page 173, as far back as 2350 B.C., long before the time of Abraham, they had a formula for bronze razors. Also, I would suggest that maybe Mullins may have the term “pira” confused with a Greek term “pyr.” In the book Pyramidology by Adam Rutherford, volume 4, page 1178-1179, he describes six different explanations for the origin of the word “pyramid.” His number two explanation reads:


“From the Greek, BŘD (pyr) meaning ‘fire’, from the conception that a pyramid rises up to a tip as does a flame of fire and that it was so named because of this resemblance.”


On pages 1180-1181 of this same book, Rutherford shows that the word “pyramid” is essentially the same in forty different languages. Egyptian is not one of the languages listed, but we probably can be pretty sure it would include that language too.




To understand the relationship between a pyramid and an obelisk, I will now, again, quote some excerpts from Adam Rutherford’s book Pyramidology, volume 4, pages 1170 to 1177. Actually every true obelisk had a small pyramid on its top. We must understand this, for Queen Hatshepsut had many obelisks erected during her reign along with the great building programs she initiated. We must also grasp this in order to comprehend the significance of the obelisks at Bethshemesh and their ultimate delivery to London and New York:


“They [the plans] were given to Imhotep, the architect and visier of King Zoser, the second King of the IIIrd Dynasty of Egyptian monarchs and were stated to have been ‘let down from Heaven’ ... or, in present-day language ‘divinely inspired’, which modern research has proved to be true, as elucidated and demonstrated ... The building of at least seven practice Pyramids — the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, the Bent Pyramid and the Northern Stone Pyramid both at Dahshur — and the Pyramidization of the Mastaba at Meidum all took place between the delivery of the plans for the Great Pyramid and its actual erection on Giza Plateau ... No trace of the plans for the World’s premier monument, the Great Pyramid, has ever been found however. The Hieroglyphic dating, with Khufu’s cartouche, the walls of the relieving compartments (sometimes called the Chambers of Construction) above the roof of the King’s Chamber, identifies the time of the erection of the Great Pyramid with the reign of King Khufu (Cheops), of the IVth Dynasty of Egypt ... Khufu was called Suphis I in the famous King-lists of the Egyptian priest-historian, Manetho ... Khufu had three wives and many sons and daughters. Redjedef, Khufu’s son by his wife Queen Hetepheres II was Khufu’s immediate successor to the throne. He reigned 8 years and built a pyramid at Abu Roash, 5 miles north-west of the Great Pyramid. This was the most northern Pyramid in Egypt. Redjedef was succeeded by his brother Khafre (Chephren), a younger son of Khufu, and he built the Second Pyramid of Giza immediately to the south-west of the Great Pyramid which was erected in his father’s reign ... Viewed from the Nile Valley, what is now called Giza Plateau formed the horizon. As Khufu was the first to build a Pyramid on that eminence, the whole Plateau was originally named after him and called Khufu’s Horizon or the Horizon of Khufu, which name became applied to his Pyramid also, now known as the Great Pyramid ... When the figure of a Pyramid was used as a hieroglyphic sign on the painted walls of the mastabas in the period of the Great Pyramid (the IVth Dynasty of Egyptian Kings) it was portrayed in white with a yellow (golden) capstone and a temenos (enclosure) wall ... wherein it is shown that the top-stone represents the sun, both literal and symbolic (the latter symbolising Christ ‘the Sun of righteousness’ — Malachi 4:2) ... Whilst ancient Egyptians, Mystics (ancient and modern) and Christians have widely different views on some matters, they all agreed on the basic idea with regard to the symbolism of the top-stone or headstone in that it represents the Sun, literal or symbolic (Psalm 118:22-24; Zechariah 4:6-7; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11 ... On this Pyramid top-stone the winged Sun-disc is depicted ... Egyptian obelisks were invariably capped with a small Pyramid, which is called a Pyramidion. In effect, an obelisk was a Pyramid capstone on a high plinth, and is so described by the American Egyptologist, Professor J. H. Breasted. Sometimes the Pyramidions of obelisks were also inscribed with a form of the Sun-God. The Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collection in the British Museum, 1930, p. 157 states ‘The obelisk seems to have been of Heliopolitan origin, from On the great Sanctuary of the Sun.’ ... The basic idea behind the accepted symbolism of the Pyramid’s capstone or Pyramidion, and later that of the obelisks, is correct in its application to the Sun, for in actuality it pertains to the literal Sun in the scientific revelation of the Great Pyramid and to the symbolic Sun, ‘the Sun of righteousness’, Jesus Christ, in its spiritual application. This Pyramidal crowning stone known as the benben, embodying the root bu, wbn meaning ‘to shine’, referring to the shining of the Sun ... How true this is from the view of spiritual symbolism also, for when Christ the ‘Sun of Righteousness’ is exalted on high the great antitypical Top-Stone, He will radiate His great power and love down upon the Earth until the whole World is filled with His glory and brought into complete alignment with Him ... The Top-Stone, symbolic of the Divine Christ, is the model with which the whole mighty structure beneath must be in alignment and conformity as will ultimately be the case both literally and symbolically in God’s appointed time, when His will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”


We can now see the connection between the Great Pyramid and the later obelisks which were usually set up in pairs on each side of the entrances to the temples. I used to be under the impression that obelisks were phallic, but no more.