Christian
Biblical Church of God

Biblical Truth
Ministries: “…the truth shall set you
free.”

Order Books
Online | Website Index | Mp3 Audio

Plato’s Successors

The Older Academy

Circa 347-325 B.C.

“Plato’s successors in leading the Academy (par.61) are his
nephew Speusippus (until ca. 339 b.c.), Xenocrates of Chalcedon (until ca.
314 b.c.), Polemon of Athens (until ca. 275 b.c.), and Crates of Athens
(until ca. 168 b.c.).  Relying upon Plato’s unwritten doctrines,
Speusippus develops a mathematical ontology.  Its principles are the
One that stands beyond being and the Many that populate the beings [i.e.,
philosophic Monism]”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p.
119).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not
separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!”
(Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.)

“The realms of being are the mathematical numbers, the
mathematical shapes, the soul (World-Soul), and the perceivable
bodies.  They are created when the One determines and limits the
Many.  The One and the Many are to be seen as analogous but different
principles on each level.  Speusippus ordered the entire reality
according to the “relation of genus and species, applying Plato’s method
of collect and division (par. 96f) consistently”  (Ricken,
Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 119).

Continuing with Ricken’s summary of the Older
Academy:

“Xenocrates exercised great influence on the further
development of Platonism and the Stoics.  He was the first one to
order philosophy into physics, ethics, and logic.  ...Like Speusippus
his ontology is oriented toward Plato’s unwritten doctrines.  The
form-numbers, the mathematical, the realm of the stars, the soul, and
finally the perceivable bodies underneath the moon follow the
principles.  ...Taking off from the Timaeus [Plato’s dialogue on the
origins and nature of the universe], Xenocrates distinguishes three
cosmological causes:  the Forms as original patterns, the demiurge,
and matter.  Via allegories he combines the philosophical worldview
with mythical religion” (Ibid, pp. 119-120).

Middle Platonism Circa
130 B.C. to 200 A.D.

The Pagan Origins of
Jewish Monotheism

The Trinity of the
One

“...Antiochus [of Ascalon (ca. 130-68 b.c.] cannot, however
be seen as the founder of Middle Platonism because the later Plato’s and
the early Academy’s theory of principles is not to be found in his
philosophy.  Eudorus of Alexandria [Egypt] (dec. ca. 25 b.c.) does,
however, tie in with this theory.  He prepares the way for Plotinus’
monism [monotheism] and the theory of hypostases:

the One is the cause of everything, even
matter.

He distinguishes between the first [One]

and

the second One. ...” (Ricken, Philosophy of the
Ancients, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, p.
229).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not
separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!”
(Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.)

Philo of
Alexandria

“The Hellenistic Jew Philo (ca. 25 b.c.—ca. 50 a.d.) also
taught in Alexandria.  He connects Jewish monotheism with Platonic
theology by means of his allegorical interpretation of the Bible,
especially of Genesis.  God is the transcendent One and the cause of
all being.  Matter is created.  God orders it by giving it his
son, the logos, who penetrates, forms, and holds it together as a
mediator of creation in the manner of the Stoic pneuma.  The
divine logos is the pattern for human reason.  The forms are
God’s thoughts; logos is the Form of
Forms.

“Like Philo, Plutarch of Chaeronea (ca. 45 -- ca. 125 a.d.)
[a priest of Apollo], well known due to his biographies and moral works,
is not a systematic thinker.  Again, like the former, he emphasized
the transcendence of God.  The causes of the world which came to be
in time are, tying in with the Timaeus, the demiurge, the Forms, and
matter.  Plutarch recognizes a good and an evil World-Soul.
Matter is neutral.  His religious interest is revealed in an
extensive demonology and teaching of reincarnation”(Ricken, Philosophy
of the Ancients, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, pp.
229-230).

The Basilidian Trinity
of Gnosticism Circa 138 - 161 A.D.

“Clement of Alexandria (Stomata 7.17) says that
Basilides, from whom the Basilidians took their name, arose under Hadrian
(A.D. 117-138) and continued under Antoninus Pius (138-161); Irenaeus
(Adversus Haereses 1.24.1) and Eusebius (Church History
4.7.3) place him in Alexandria.  ...According to Clement [of
Alexandria], the hypothesis advanced by Basilides was that the soul that
has sinned in a previous existence is punished by suffering in this
life,... Basilides taught that there is an unborn and nameless Father,
from whom proceeded by emanation a whole series of principalities and
angels, who occupy 365 heavens.... The chief of these angels is thought to
be the God of the Jews.  This God desired to make the other nations
subject to his own people; hence the other nations resisted him and were
at enmity with his nation.  The Father, therefore, sent his
first-begotten Nous (... “mind”) --who is called Christ....He did not
suffer death....Simon of Cyrene, who bore his cross, was transformed to
look like him, and was crucified....Jesus received the form of
Simon...Then he ascended, invisibly, to him who sent him” (Finegan,
Myth & Mystery, pp. 222-223).

“...Basilides [also] taught that there was a time when there
was nothing.  Since there was nothing.  God himself was
“nonexistent.”  Then the nonexistent God made a nonexistent universe
out of what was nonexistent.  He “hypostatized” or caused to subsist
a certain single seed that contained in itself the entire mixture of all
the seeds of the universe.  In the seed was a threefold sonship, in
every respect of the same substance with the nonexistent God.  Of
this threefold sonship, one portion was composed of fine particles, one of
coarse particles, and one was in need of cleansing.  The fine portion
ascended to the nonexistent one, being drawn, as is each being in its own
way, by his exceedingly great beauty and loveliness.  The coarse
portion was not able to hurry upward, and therefore equipped itself with
the Holy Spirit like a wing.  But the Holy Spirit was not of the same
substance as the sonship, and so was eventually left behind by this second
ascending portion of sonship.  Thereupon the Holy Spirit became a
firmament between the hypersosmos and the cosmos, that is, between the
supermundane realm and the universe.  The third portion of the
sonship, which needed cleansing, remained meanwhile in the great heap of
the mixture of the seeds of the universe, where it both conferred and
received benefits” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp.
223-224).

“At this point there was begotten from the cosmic
seed-mixture the Great Archon, the Head of the universe, who is of
inexpressible beauty, magnitude, and power.  He rose to the
firmament, did not suppose that there was anything beyond, and did not
know that the sonship remaining in the seed-mixture was wiser than he;
therefore he considered himself the wise architect and proceeded to create
every part of the universe.  He begot a son, wiser than himself, and
seated him at his right hand.  The Archon may also be called the
Demiurge (..., “craftsman, maker, creator”), and the place of his throne
is called the Ogdoad (the Eight).  Another Archon then arose out of
the seed-mixture.  His place is called the Hebdomad (the
Seven).  He also made a son who was wiser than himself.  The
whole universe was now finished, as well as the hypercosmic things, but
the third sonship that had been left in the seed-mixture still needed to
be reinstated above.  So the gospel came into the universe...”
(Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 224).

“Albinus (second century a.d.) and Apuleius of Madura (born
ca. 123 a.d.) are attributed, according to several scholars, to a common
school founded by Gaius, the teacher of Albinus.  Albinus’
Didaskalikos (Outline of Platonic Philosophy) combines Platonic
with Aristotelian and Stoic teachings.  He recognizes two
triads:  matter, Forms, and the first God that corresponds to the
Timaeus’ demiurge; and the first God [God the Theos or Father],
whose ineffability he emphasizes, the Intelligence [the Logos or Son], and
the World-Soul [the Pneuma or the Holy Spirit].  Albinus
distinguishes a twofold concept of Forms.  The immaterial (Platonic)
Forms are God’s thoughts; their copies are (Aristotelian) forms bound to
matter.  Clearer than in Albinus, Plotinus’ theory of hypostases is
anticipated by Apuleius’ triad (De dogmate Platonis) ‘first God,
Intelligence and Forms, Soul.’  Here as in Plotinus the original
forms are clearly assigned to the second principle”  (Ricken,
Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 230).

The Chaldean Oracles of
Julian the Chaldaean

Rome Circa 150-160
A.D.

“In the time of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) [Pope and
Bishop of Rome] and Marcus Aurelius (161-180) [Stoic Emperor of Rome]
Julian the Chaldaean (from his Mesopotamian homeland) and his son Julian
the Theurgist (..., meaning “worker of divine things”) taught in
Rome.  Their doctrines are set forth in the so-called Chaldaean
Oracles, which are known in many fragments quoted by Proclus (A.D.
410-485) and others, chiefly of the Neoplatonic school, no doubt because
of recognized affinities in thought [see Hans Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles
and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman
Empire].

In the Chaldaean Oracles there is much about the sun,
the planetary spheres, and the like, which probably reflects Persian,
Babylonian, and Syrian backgrounds.  There is agreement with Plato in
such items as Father (pater) for the name of the Supreme Being
(e.g., Plato, Timaeus 28c), the supreme place of intuitive
knowledge (see Plato, Republic 508d: “When [the soul] is firmly
fixed on the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent it
apprehends and knows them”), and the conception of the “leading up” ... of
the soul through the heavens (see Republic 515e, 517b, 521b, 521c,
where Plato used the same and related terms for the soul’s ascent to the
contemplation of pure being).

In connection with the “leading up” of the soul there were
evidently also rites of initiation in the Chaldaean mysteries.  In
his Commentary on Plato’s Republic Proclus states that his teacher
Syrianos said that the rites of sacrifice offered by Achilles at the
funeral pyre of Patroclos (in the Iliad 23.192-225) “imitate” ...
the “immortalization of the soul” ...performed by the Chaldaean
theurgists” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery,
pp.202-203).

Atticus, the Demiurge
and the Evil World-Soul (176 A.D.)

“Whereas Albinus assumes a fundamental correspondence
between Plato and Aristotle, Atticus (around 176 a.d.) is an orthodox
Platonist who sharply criticizes Aristotle and all attempts of harmonizing
him with Plato.  Aristotle denied the immateriality and the
immortality of the soul, probably with his teaching of entelechy (par.
168).  Aristotle’s theology of the unmoved mover does not admit
providence and is thus a form of atheism.  In his Timaeus
interpretation Atticus assumes an uncreated matter that is held in chaotic
motion by the evil World-Soul.  The demiurge gives the Forms to
matter and intelligence to the evil World-Soul”  (Ricken,
Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 230).

The Trinity of
Pythagoras

“Authors and pseudoepigraphs that stem from the Pythagorean
tradition reveal similarities with the Middle Platonism.  Moderatus
of Gnades (first century a.d.) claims that Plato, Aristotle, and the early
Academy stole all of their most important teachings from Pythagoras.
According to him there is a first, a second, and a third One
[monotheism].

The first One is beyond ousia, or
being;

the second [One] is to be equated with the
Forms;

the third [One], the Soul, participates in the first and
second.”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, pp.
230-231).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not
separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!”
(Joseph W. Tkach, Sr., July 27, 1993.)

The Pagan Philosopher
Numenius

A Trinitarian Catholic Father

“Nicomachus of Gerasa (second century a.d.) equates numbers
and deities in his Arithmetic Theology.  Numenius’ (second century
a.d.) proximity to Plotinus is testified to by Plotinus being accused of
plagiarizing his works (Porphyrios, Vita Plot., par.82).  Theology,
Numenius claims in his work On the Good, must originate back beyond Plato
to Pythagoras and integrate the teachings of the Brahman, the Jews,
magicians, and Egyptians (Fr. 1a).  Plato is nothing other than an
“attic speaking Moses” (Fr. 8).  Numenius’ first god is only related
to itself.  The second and third gods are only two different
functions of the next hypostasis [again, philosophic Monotheism—a
Monotheistic Trinity].  It contemplates the Forms in the first god,
and it combines with matter in order to give the Forms to it, and in doing
so loses its unity (Fr. 11)”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the
Ancients, p. 231).

Neoplatonism Circa 200
- 600 A.D.

Ammonius
Saccas

175-250
A.D.

Founder of
Neoplatonism

“The founder of Neoplatonism is considered to be Ammonius
Saccas (c. A.D. 175-250), who was a teacher of philosophy at Alexandria
[Egypt].  ...Along with Plotinus a Neoplatonist named Origen and the
Christian writer Origen (Eusebius, Church History 6.19.6) were also
hearers of Ammonius Saccas.  Their teacher required of them that they
should not disclose his revelations, and Ammonius Saccas left no writings
of his own, so little is directly known of him and his doctrines.  It
is evident, however, that he was of great influence upon Plotinus, who
became the first major writer of Neoplatonic doctrine”  (Finegan,
Myth & Mystery, p. 179).

Origen

Neoplatonism And the
Chaldean Numenius

“In Egypt, Origen (c.  A.D. 185-254), who became the
head of the Christian catechetical school at Alexandria, was, according to
Porphyry (quoted by Eusebius, Church History 6.19-1-14), at one
time a hearer of Ammonius Saccas, and was continually studying Plato and
busying himself with the writings of Numenius (a Syrian philosopher [and
early Catholic Church Father] who also influenced Plotinus) [Numenius was
a Chaldean by birth] and other Greek philosophers.  While Origen (to
be distinguished from a contemporary Neoplatonist of the same name) was
not officially a Neoplatonist [officially he was a Stoic philosopher], he
entertained many similar views—due to the influence of which Greek
Christianity was always more Neoplatonic than Latin Christianity”
(Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 180).

“Neoplatonism is the dominating philosophy of the late
ancient period.  From the last decades of the third century a.d.
Plato and Aristotle are handed down and commented on by
Neoplatonists.  Until the beginning of the nineteenth century Plato
was interpreted for the most part Neoplatonically.  Beginning with
apologetics in the second century up to the recovery of Aristotle since
the middle of the twelfth century Christian philosophy and theology are
influence by Middle and Neoplatonism.  Neoplatonism is connected with
Stoicism by its religious interest.  Especially the Stoic concept of
logos is integrated into the Platonic system.  Plotinus’ philosophy,
especially the teaching of the three hypostases—namely, the One, the
Intelligence, and the Soul [this is the basic Monotheism of Joseph
Tkach]-- had the way prepared for it by Middle Platonism beginning in the
first century b.c., which ties in with the later Plato’s and the early
Academy’s theory of principles as well as with the Timaeus’
creation myth.  Neoplatonism, and along with it ancient philosophy,
ends in the West with the closing of the Academy in Athens by Emperor
Justinian I in the year 529 [a.d.] and in the East with the Arabian
conquest of Alexandria in the year 642 [a.d.]” (Ibid, page
227).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not
separate....Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!”
(Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.)

Plotinus The Chaldean
205-270 A.D.

Interpreter of
Plato

“.... Plotinus was born in 205 b.c. A.D.; place of birth and
nation are unknown.  When twenty-eight years old he turned to
philosophy and found a teacher in Ammonius Saccas, who impressed him so
much that he stayed with him eleven years.  We know about Ammonius
only that he maintained the immateriality of the soul and the fundamental
correspondence between Plato and Aristotle.  In 243 Plotinus joined
Emperor Gordian III’s Persian expedition in order to become acquainted
with Persian and Indian philosophies.  This information has caused a
discussion about whether oriental influences can be found in Plotinus’
philosophy.  This is to be denied; Plotinus stands in the Greek
tradition.  In the beginning of 244 Gordian was murdered in
Mesopotamia.  Plotinus then went to Rome, and there he began to give
lectures at the age of forty.  ...To precisely this demonic man
[reports Porphyry of Plotinus’ religiousness], when he rose to the first
transcendent God on the path that Plato described in the Symposium,
appeared the God who has no shape or form and is enthroned above the
Intelligence and the whole intelligible world [...] it was namely his goal
and target to be close to and one with the God that is above all; during
the time that I was with him he attained this goal four times due to his
ineffable power” (chap.23)” (Ricken, Philosophy of The
Ancients,  pp. 232-233).

“.... Plotinus unified the elements of Middle Platonic
philosophy into an organic unity due to his own personal experience.
He utilizes the language of the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics in order
to portray his own mystical experience with these means.  It follows
from the combination of metaphysics and mysticism that Plotinus’
philosophy combines two perspectives with each other.  On the one
hand he stands in the tradition of Greek cosmology.  Like the
pre-Socratics and Aristotle, he inquires into the first causes in the
universe.  The path to God for him is an ascent in the series of
causes.  The other perspective consists in this ascent simultaneously
being the path to oneself, into the heart of one’s soul.  The three
hypostases—Soul, Intelligence, and the One—are found not only in the
cosmos but also in individual human beings.  One can certainly find
intimations for this perspective in Plato and Aristotle, but it is only
expressly developed by Plotinus for the first time, who thus prepares the
way for idealism.  For Plotinus cosmology and metaphysical psychology
are only two different ways of looking at one and the same reality”
(Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients, p. 234).

“.... The soul is “what something is”: it is what a human
being is, its human beingness, its form.  As such it is primary being
in a first sense when compared with matter and the composite
substance.  At the same time the form of visible substances that the
soul perceives is the cause of beauty”  (Ricken, Philosophy of The
Ancients, p. 235).

“.... The Intelligence is not form but is rather the
producer of all forms.  Plotinus compares the soul with the matter
and the Intelligence with the artist.  The soul possesses, as we saw,
the undivided forms.  It can only know because it is capable of
grasping the individual, distinct forms.  The intelligence is the
original unity in which the forms are not yet distinct from each
other.  Differentiation only begins when it imprints them on the
soul, as the artist does to matter” (Ricken, Philosophy of The
Ancients,  p. 237).

“The Intelligence does not create the cosmos in the same
manner as an artist or craftsman does a product.  The latter
deliberate and decide to produce something.  The Intelligence,
however, creates the cosmos as necessarily as the sun does light or an
object produces its reflection or shadow.  From this it follows that
the cosmos is eternal like the Intelligence” (Ricken, Philosophy of The
Ancients,  p. 238).

“Not only being beautiful but also being the One is a
transcendental predicate of being according to Plotinus.  “All
being,” work VI, 9 The Good (The One) begins, which we shall follow
initially, “is a being through the One. ...The Intelligence is being in
the proper sense; it is the entirety of being.  Being is conceived of
from the perspective of predication.  It can be said what being is,
and this assertion reveals a plurality in any case.  Therefore the
One cannot be a being.  It is eidosless and is in this sense
nothingness.  ...The One is neither a something nor a being.  It
does not fall under the categories of quantity or quality.  It is
neither moving nor at rest, neither in space nor in time. When we say that
it is the cause of everything, we are not saying what it is in itself; we
are merely uttering an assertion about our relation to the
One.

“But how do we have access to it nonetheless?  It is
the last point of retreat to which all life acts return and in which they
come together such as “everything depends on it, looking up to which
everything lives and thinks; for it is the cause of life, thought, and
being” (I, 6, $33).  “For all things aspire to it, they drive toward
it, forced by their natures, as if they intuited that they could not be
without it.  ...The rising forth of the Intelligence from the One
corresponds to that of light from the sun.  Like the sun’s light, the
Intelligence is the expression of the perfection of the One.  Light
is necessarily there as long as the sun exists.  Thus the
Intelligence and the Soul are eternal and necessary like the One.
But just as the light cannot be without the sun, the Intelligence and the
Soul cannot be without the One.  The Intelligence has the faculty of
love in addition to that of thinking.  Thinking can only grasp what
is in the Intelligence.  Only love is capable of touching the Good
that lies beyond the Intelligence (VI, 7, $273).  This encounter
cannot be achieved due to one’s own power alone; human beings can only
prepare themselves and wait until it appears (V, 5, $53).  Then the
Soul becomes one with the One “by having the midpoints touch.”  The
union is no viewing “but rather another mode of sight: moving out of
oneself, making oneself simple and sacrificing”(VI, 9, $71-76) “ (Ricken,
Philosophy of The Ancients, pp. 239-242).

Porphyry The Chaldean
232-305 A.D.

“Porphyry (A.D. 232-305), born in Syria and disciple of
Plotinus in Rome, was the editor and biographer of Plotinus, and the
author of a polemic Against the Christians (condemned to be burned by the
emperor Theodosius II in A.D. 435) and of other works, including an
introduction (Isagoge) to and commentary on Aristotle’s Categories.
Due to the influence of this last work Aristotle became the accepted
logician of Neoplatonism, as Plato was the accepted theologian.
Augustine cites another work by Porphyry under the title Philosophy from
Oracles (perhaps the same work as On the Return of the Soul).
Augustine feels that Porphyry improves upon both Plato and Plotinus in
that Porphyry holds that human souls return only into human bodies (not
those of animals) and that at last “the purified soul returns to the
Father, that it may never more be entangled in the polluting contact with
evil” (City of God 10:30; 12.20).

“In Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligibles, Porphyry
writes about soul and body in a way reminiscent of the words of the Orphic
hymn to Death about “the vivid folds by which the soul, attracting body
holds” (p. l74): ‘ That which nature binds, nature also dissolves; and
that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves.  Nature,
indeed, bound the body to the soul, but the soul binds herself to the
body. Nature therefore liberates the body from the soul; but the soul
liberates herself from the body.  Hence there is a twofold
death:  the one, indeed, universally known in which the body is
liberated from the soul; but the other peculiar to philosophers, in which
the soul is liberated from the body; nor does the one always attend the
other ‘ “ (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 179).

Iamblichus The Chaldean
250-325 A.D.

“Iamblichus (c. A.D. 250-325) was born at one of the towns
named Chalcis in Syria, studied under Porphyry, and afterward returned to
Syria to establish his own school (at either Apamea or Daphne, both near
Antioch).  He was the author of commentaries on Aristotle and Plato,
and of many other books, some extant, some known only in fragments or from
references.  Of his work it has been said that “he began the attempt
to build upon a Neoplatonic basis a complete and coherent theology
encompassing all the rites, myths and divinities of later syncretistic
paganism” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, Baker Book House, 1989, p.
181).

Iamblichus and
Pythagoras Worshippers of the Sun

“... in his Life of Pythagoras Iamblichus says that
Pythagoras ‘divinely healed and purified the soul, resuscitated and saved
its divine part, and conducted to the intelligible its divine eye, which,
as Plato says [Republic 527d-e], is better worth saving than ten thousand
corporeal eyes; for by looking through this alone, when it is strengthened
and clarified by appropriate aids, the truth pertaining to all beings is
perceived’ “ (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p.
181).

“The school of Neoplatonism founded by Iamblichus in Syria
was later moved to Pergamum [headquarters for the Chaldean Mysteries], and
one of its leaders, Maximus of Smyrna, was the chosen master of the
emperor Julian (A.D. 361-363; see p. 210), who was converted from
Christianity to Neoplatonism and thus, from the Christian point of view,
called the “apostate.”  Probably also to be identified with the
Pergamene school was Sallust, whose On the Gods and the World may have
been prepared for Julian.  In this world Sallust distinguishes four
kinds of myth in which symbolic thought is embodied (theological,
psychological, natural, and mixed), and makes it plain that it is only to
speak after common custom if “we call the orb of the sun and its rays the
Sun itself.”  After the death of Julian, and with the restoration of
Christianity as the state religion, the Pergamene school came to an end”
(Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp. 183-184).

[
Home | Search | Site Map | About Us | What's New | Beliefs

|Sermons | Publications | Books | Archives | Links | Contact Us | Español ]

Christian Biblical Church of God ©
2006

Hollister, California
95024-1442

Contact Fred
Coulter

**In order to receive a reply when writing to Fred Coulter,
please include your home  mailing
address.**

Contact the
Webmaster

Phone:  1-831-637-1875

Fax:  1-831-637-9616

http://www.cbcg.org/