John's Heaven or God's Heaven?

@The Anointed,

Who is Jesus's audience? What is the context?

His audience is the Pharisees, who (much like you) are incredibly fixated on God's judgement, refusing the idea of God's grace. They judge the sinners, they offer no mercy to the suffering, they show no sympathy to widows and orphans. That is, they they are behaving like the followers of THIS "Jesus".
So God tells them a series of parables about a master. But in every case, this master turns out to be unjust. In fact, in the parable of the talents, this is pointed out twice. First, the master is told that he reaps where he does not sow and gathers what he does not earn. The man gives him his offering back. So he tells him he should have at least invested it (in a way that is unlawful for Jews to do), and takes it all and gives it to a man who had 10 talents.

Jesus is SHOWING THEM what it is like if God is as judgemental as they are. But God doesn't have to be that judgemental. Will you turn away, or continue as you are?

Jesus tells a parable of a man who has a great debt forgiven, yet is held accountable after he tries to bully those under him. You do have a great debt forgiven. I do not think you will go to any second death or lake of fire, despite all of your sins. Yet even though I do not believe in a specific place of punishment, the Earth punishes us plenty. Do you want to walk around during your life as though you have a giant weight around your neck?

Jesus is not predicting the Apocalypse here. He is telling another parable, about a master who sets standards that only those with means can actually even carry out (tax on the poor). Can a poor person feed the hungry? Can they clothe the naked? Can they give to the thirsty? They typically have not enough to spare beyond their own needs. An unjust Son of Man, unless this is only a judgement against those with more than enough (like the Pharisees).

Jesus NEVER preached judgement of any kind against the tax collectors, the lepers, the blind, or the needy. "Because you are a harlot, you are condemned forever." Yeah, Jesus totally said that, right? Hell no! He defended her against getting stoned. And he preached doom and gloom to the Pharisees mainly to show them what God could potentially punish them with, if he so desired. To try to teach them, and persuade them to stop behaving like shits.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

"Because you are a harlot, you are condemned forever." Yeah, Jesus totally said that, right? Hell no! He defended her against getting stoned.

You haven't a clue do you, you poor biblical blind ignoramus.

Of course he defended his mother against the accusation of the Jewish authorities, that she was an adulterous, who had remarried another man by the name 'Cleophas' while her original husband, Joseph ben Jacob, the father of Joseph of Arimathea, the half brother to Jesus, was still alive, after he had divorced Mary.

For a woman to remarry after being divorced, was totally legal according to the temporal laws of Israel, for Moses gave to the Israelites the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, after which the woman was free to remarry.

2 Replies

@The Anointed,

I had a dream just now.

It was maybe a semi-fantasy setting, and already the final details are fading from my mind. So I'm expanding around the memory so the dream fits together.

I think I was a factory worker, in dread because I suddenly couldn't use magic. I legit thought it was my last day. It might have even been my hiring day, but I'd been given a stone by an older worker who was jealous of my inate potential as "good luck charm." On the day of hire, Mom was there, I confided in her that I thought my chances were dim because I had the jitters or something. While I had potential, I wasn't always the best user probably anyway ( untrained type), but now I couldn't feel it. (1) As it turned out, the energy I was missing was nullified by the charm I held in my pocket. (2) Hiring was up to the president's daughter not the president (who ran the company itself, and didn't bother with the staffing) . (3) The daughter didn't care if employees had magic at all, and she seldom if ever fired people. But she also had seen was the old worker had given the stone on previous interview. She removes the stone from my pocket and gives it to the old worker. She explains that this is nethicite and it has the property of dimming or snuffing magic when one is in close contact. Now the shoe is on the other foot! Surely she's gonna let him go instead and let me keep my job. (4) Well no. The daughter says that it wouldn't have mattered anyway, in fact she has a few with no magic at all, some with a different type of magic, and so on (she's talking about faith here, in case you suck at analogy). And lack of magic is not a disqualification. She then asks him if he wants to leave. Uhhh ohh sounds like she does intend to have him quit! (5) He is desperate for his job and says "No, I don't want to leave!" She says, " Well, good then! " As he look baffled, fully expecting to be punished, she explains that unless someone wants to leave, she doesn't really fire people much. They have to actually be trying to get fired, which means they want to leave anyway. And she totally respects that, often offering unemployment plus a nice severance.

The meaning of this embellished dream is this (not perfectly in order):
1. God doesn't necessarily punish us for being faithless or the "wrong" faith. Atheists could goto the Afterlife too, if they chose to. They usually don't make that choice because they think that God doesn't allow them that, or will punish them if they have an Afterlife.
2. God doesn't go around sentencing sinners to death. Nor does Jesus. This is a terrible lie perpetuated by Revelation. But Jesus in the Gospel forgave plenty of sinners and in fact told a thief next to him (he didn't tell the other one anything, leaving it open-ended) that this very day he'd join him in Paradise. Revelation has virtually the opposite message, and is basically like the dread I have that the president will fire me. But that turns out to be untrue. Also, during this sequence, Mom is a visitor cuz I've always known her to be a busybody and wanna see where I work. I think she left before my job that day got underway, just enough that I could confess to her that I was doomed. She, like the president, represents God. And this is a confession of sins.
3. The president's daughter. You see, in this dream, it didn't matter to me whether it was a son or a daughter. For all I knew, it still could have been a son, who transitioned offscreen or loved crossdressing. If you are insistent that it must be a son, even though it's my dream we'll go with that. But it was a daughter cuz that was the dream. The president gave her hiring/firing authority because she was sweet and good with people. And because he basically spoiled her dearly. So too does God have a son or daughter, and it doesn't actually matter, except in context of the story.
4. It is assumed that the man here (like the Pharisees) will instead get punished. But the daughter only asks if he wants to keep working. It is fully our option to go any place we want after this life. Although evil people can certainly try to trick us into thinking we have to leave (just as some people are tricked into thinking they deserve Hell or others are driven to suicide). We are only fired if it's clear we wanted to leave anyway.
5. Ultimately, we have choices, and God will sometimes even intervene in these choices, offering miracles. Even a person who sees suicide as an option is not actually damned to Hell. But they might suffer alot before Jesus shows them that things don't have to be this way (depression is a bitch).

Anyway. Back to bad. G'night!

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Aagh I always do stuff like this. I write as though thinking aloud, so sometimes I type stuff in wrong.

"Fine details" not "final details." There are probably others. I am doomed for making such a mistake.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

Let's put Matthew's "Apocalypse" into terms you can understand.

Currently, the secular medical community has convinced all of us there will be a COVID Apocalypse any day now (now you understand the issue with fake apocalypse propechies, they become self-fulfilling fear campaigns). The masks, the vaccines, the whole bit.

I could either use the actual treatment I received at the hands of my own church before all this, but I think I'll use Roslyn as an example.

Roslyn (Roslyn Conference & Retreat Center) is a legit church retreat near Richmond, VA outskirts that ministers and their families go to. It has food, cabins, a big walking trail (it's basically a forested area where clergy can get away from things). It also has a nice fireplace, a small chapel, a library, I think there is a largely defunct exercise room, a room where you can watch TV. There is also rental for videos. The library rather sucks, having mostly sacred literature and especially theological literature (Paul Tillich is cool and all, but sometimes I wanna read Brent Weeks or Terry Brooks).
Most of the cabins are old style, and don't have great heating. The new style rooms do have heating, but I can't imagine being stuck in them the whole week.

I hope you'll tell them about this scenario.

Currently, according their website...
http://www.roslyncenter.org/

Quote:

Roslyn is committed to fulfilling our mission now more than ever. We have learned and done much in the past months and our staff has worked tirelessly to respond to the pandemic, ensuring as risk-free an environment as possible, while also providing the hospitality our guests expect. While our frontline staff and many of our guests have been vaccinated, we do not require vaccination to visit Roslyn. However, following the latest CDC guidance along with that of Governor Northam, we are recommending (but not requiring) that all staff and guests consider wearing a mask in public indoor settings where there is an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission. We continue to offer hand sanitizing stations around the grounds and are following the same cleaning protocols that we have for years. We have also upped our technology game to enable groups to enrich their gatherings through remote participation. Please come see us soon!

I'm okay to visit without a vaccine, so let's say I'm bored or lonely, and want to spend time with my parents when they go on retreat (they actually went this year, btw). Based on this, since I utterly refuse to mask up, I would go to the dining hall with the fireplace but see alot of people do safety theater. If I were subject to peer pressure (I completely am not), the sight of all the masked people in there makes me stay inside. This is completely unrealistic, as I only shun places where I'm asked to leave (which is completely the case at the church I tried to attend, they had me sign a form and ask my vaccine status. I never attended again thus far). But it's a scenario.
So I stay in the cabin the whole time. My parents bring me food, but it's really only what they can pack in a napkin. I'm hungry yet the place isn't very welcoming. I'm kinda thirsty but I can't go in without embarrassment (again, unrealistic, here it says masks preferred bur not required, doubtless they've lost business by pushing the mandates hard). I decide I'm not welcome in the library, the tv room or to rent videos, and so I stay in my room. I'm locked up or alone yet nobody (but my parents) will visit me. I become cold (we didn't get a nicer cabin this year), yet nobody drops by to get me a coat. And I'm sick one day, but nobody dropped by.

So what do I do? I could write to the dioceses and all its members, and have the bishop canned for upholding CDC mandates when Christian values should come first in a religious setting. But I think I'll instead complain online about the theoretical (I haven't visited since COVID started) conditions I had to put up with, and the awful glares I got from staff members for not wearing a mask.

Roslyn does house cleaning. They separate out those who were welcoming despite my refusal to obey guidelines, from those who I pointed out give me a hard time. Those people are fired. Not tossed into fire, fired. You see the difference?

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

After having studied multiple religions, I have a pretty different take on seemingly harmless or hopeful-sounding passages. Especially, I pay attention to when situations seem to be portraying a sort of false-light.

Quote: (Christ)
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

What can this be but other religions, which (given some work) are also intended to be saved? Yet the Revelation condemns all who do not worship this "Jesus" who brutally sentences people who don't follow him to death.

Interesting.

I was mainly interested in your statement about Revelation being contradictory with the rest of the Bible. I don’t have much in common with ‘mainstream religion' but I have to concede that Revelation is the inevitable culmination of everything before. It’s a symbolic representation of the days I think we are presently living. I’m happy to have those clues available.

Your basic complaint seems to be the ultimate separation of people into two groups and destinies. Can you honestly say there is nothing like that anywhere else in the Bible? To be consistent you would have to tear out way more than Revelation.

But about that quote you gave.
Here is my reading of it (with context).

This is occurring soon after Christ gathered his twelve disciples. At the time, this WAS the flock that was teaching the gospel of Christ. One of them came to Christ and complained that there was some loner out there teaching the gospel who was NOT of their flock. Guess they wanted to feel like it was an 'exclusive' club.

Christ replied to them to let him be, he is preaching the same message as Himself, and that he would be one of them at the end.

I take great comfort from that passage when I’m criticized for not being a church member. I often reply to them with that scripture.

If you do not see the necessity of that ultimate separation, I don’t think you’ve thought it through enough. Do you really like the status quo that much?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It's some guy (who we cannot prove is John, just as we can't prove John himself wrote John)

My basic complaint is that Jesus himself says that he came not to judge but to save the world. This book is a bit like that drawing I've seen online, where Jesus shaves up and we see Hitler. It's hilariously out of character. Yet this book is not a joke.

https://loginportal.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Jesus+is++hi_446985_4048862.jpg

My other complaint is that rather than the culmination of the Bible, it is an attempt to weave together a "happy ending" using alot of Jewish and Gnostic almost psychedelic imagery. It is clearly pro-Jewish (ignores the fact that Priscilla and Aquilla were active members to condemn a woman in one church as a Jezebel for preaching so-called false doctrine). I know that Hollywood movies about Revelation have a sort of fundie outlook. But a careful reading of Revelation reveals it as more like the OT than ths New Testament. It is deeply reactionary, and Jesus is only there as a prop.

You know what it really reminds me of? The Muslim depiction of Apocalypse. This one seems more canon. The Christian Apocalypse appears to treat the entirety of the Gospel and the letters like they don't exist.
https://www.zwemercenter.com/guide/islamic-apocalypse-6-things-you-should-know/
In fact, their apocalypse is clearly lifted from the "Christian" apocalypse.

Here are eight reasons that John couldn't have written the Revelation:
1. He died as a martyr. John of Zebedee died with his brother according to Christian lore. This means "John of Patmos" was a different person.
2. We have the "disciple whom Jesus loved" who is supposed to have written John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. The writing style seems consistent for all four, though parts of 1 John may have been written by another. But the style of writing is much different. He even uses different words. Compare this to Peter always using "tree" to mean the cross. Writers have pet phrases, and we know it isn't them if it's excessively different.
3. And not just different. Writing experts call the writing style of Revelation "barbaric" . This John (the disciple who loved Jesus, not of Zebedee) who wrote John, 1-3 John was educated and knew fluent Greek. This "John" who wrote Revelation somehow forgot all of his Greek and wrote as though awkwardly translating from Hebrew. Do you suddenly forget the English you know and revert to a garbled form of it? Not unless you've had a psychotic break or a stroke, in which case this text would be valid anyway. But this is a different person, one less learned.
4. The essential theology is different. John spoke of grace and forgiveness, "John" tosses this aside, and acts completely as though he'd never said that.
5. This John never claims to be an apostle.
6. Revelation names its author, whereas John is anonymous, written by the didciple whom Jesus loved. It would only have its author named for one reason, and this is to take credit. But the disciple whom Jesus loved was a humble man, not even taking credit for his own name. So the only reason to take credit here is to give "street rep" to an otherwise sketchy document.
7. And it is sketchy. Nothing in there suggests he knew Jesus personally. It's a bit like saying "in the name of Gandhi, I will slaughter you." There are several passages where they talk about eating or doing unclean things. But Jesus is one who declared all food to be clean.
8. Some people in the first century did not believe John was the author. Then it became canonized, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Pull out John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and read them carefully for theology. Pull out the Gospels, and read then for theology . Then pull out Revelation.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

It's some guy (who we cannot prove is John, just as we can't prove John himself wrote John)

It would not matter to me who wrote those words. It’s the information in them.
They are living water to me.

Your mileage may vary.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

And the information itself is Bad News.
By that, I mean the Gospel literally means "Good News."
Yet Galatians 1:8 tells as, "But even if we (that is, Jesus's disciples or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"

Yes, even if an angel tells us this (Revelation claims to be told by angels).
Yes, even if the name is of a follower of Jesus (Revelation claims to be written by John)

That's two for two. And a third.

It appears to contradict the Gospels. And the Letters. And Jesus warns specifically against false prophets. That makes it a gospel other than is taught to us.

Three for three.
Almost as though they were specifically warning against text like this...

But you still aren't convinced?

Quote:

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Johnof (6)
\/\/\/
Patmos (6)

Now, when you alternate between the two, you get Jahmos. Enter it into the anagrammer -> Josham. (6)

He was a king before Ahaz in the Bible. This is a number of a man. Now King Josham was humble enough to know that he was not good enough to enter the temple (unlike his father Uzziah, who was too proud). But that's the point, not being worthy enough to enter the gates.

But never mind that. That name is derived from the name "John of Patmos". John of Patmos himself is telling us that he is one of the Beasts. The other Beast is this fake "Jesus" which he makes speak blasphemies through this text.

The whole of Revelation has literally no information that isn't prophecy of the self-fulfilling kind. That is, wicked and secular men, like Bill Gates will use it to attempt to overthrow God. Not that such a thing can be done.
Bill Gates applied for a patent using cryptocurrency named WO/2020/060606.
(That's World Order 2020, 666)

Read this instead.

Quote:

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Not evil men and their organizations (power/principalities), not demons possessing evil men (technically angels of the evil kind), not the evil things they create (things present), nor things they plan to create (things to come), nor their evil itself (depths), nor any other created thing. Nothing there is can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ our Lord. This is a false prophecy.

The Mark of the Beast is a created thing. So this false prophet is telling us that some created thing, a thing of the physical world, can prevent your soul from entering Heaven. Does this seem right?

I will not put anything on or in my body, but that has more to do with not wanting to be an android of any sort than anything else.

Toss this writing into the trash, and advise every Christian you know of to do the same. Then advise any zombie apocalypse or climate apocalypse types that they too are being misled by a great delusion.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

But here is more Good News.

It literally does not matter if you fear the prophecies of Revelation
Or ignore them
Or even if you try to make them come to pass

https://wordblessings.com/god-is-more-powerful-than-the-devil/

Quote:

God Is More Powerful Than The Devil
Not only is it true that God is more powerful than the devil, God is infinitely more powerful than Satan and all of his demons combined!

I’m emphasizing this idea about how God is more powerful than the devil (Satan) and all of his demons combined because I want to reassure you that God is totally in control. There is no way all of the forces of hell combined could overpower God.

If they could have, they would have done so long ago.

https://wordblessings.com/images/learn/course-P9130016-he-who-is-in-you-is-greater-2.jpg

Quote:

Satan must get permission before he can do anything to us

Quote:
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” 9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” 11 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

Quote:
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 3 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” 4 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” 6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

Unless you allow Satan to hurt you, unless God allows it, he can literally do nothing to you. I have gone into restaurants not wearing masks and not vaccinated. Nobody harmed a hair on my head.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Your mileage does indeed vary. A lot.

That’s all very interesting but it does not address any question or statement I’ve made.
I’m afraid there is no Socratic dialogue to be had.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ah well.

Socrates was a little punk anyway.

I would still advise you read several passages before Revelation, and do some comparative study.

Or you can read this article.
https://areomagazine.com/2021/02/24/apocalypse-no-why-i-no-longer-believe-in-the-end-of-the-world/

Quote:

My family was big on apocalypse. My Calvinist grandmother and my anti-nuclear father were both convinced, in different ways, that the end was nigh. For my father and me, this manifested in building an amateur bunker in preparation for nuclear Armageddon. The apocalypse mindset was passed on through our family, though over the years it morphed into new forms.

Since childhood, I had subscribed to the population explosion doomsday theory that was prevalent from the 1960s until quite recently. I then moved on to believing in the new Ice Age apocalypse prediction of the 1970s. In the 80s and 90s, it was first the acid rain and then the AIDS apocalypse. Then it was the Y2K millennium bug apocalypse, which would wipe out all technology in the year 2000. Then I feared that our fossil fuels would run out, with the result that seven eighths of the world population would die off, as the peak oil theorists claimed.

Some time in my mid-forties, I came to realize that every few years I required a new apocalypse as the expiry date ran out on the previous one. It was as if there were an apocalypse-shaped slot in my mind that had to be periodically filled with new content. This struck me as a mental health issue. Was I really looking for new Armageddons, so that I could feel under threat all the time? Was this a dependency? Was I addicted to apocalypses?

Rather than searching for a new cataclysm, I decided to take a step back and ask: why am I drawn to the apocalypse narrative in the first place? And is it just me? Western culture seems obsessed with apocalypses: from those preached by tele-evangelists, to the ravings of terrorists and cults and the fantasy scenarios depicted in blockbuster movies.

It goes on to tell the there was literally no apocalyptic writing before 70 AD, which was a horrific cataclysm for the Jews, and that the Christ resurrection narrative (basically, they say that Jesus only raised from the dead as a result of the loss of life for a military Jesus; I don't agree with this part)

Quote:

So why did the apocalypse narrative change so dramatically?

The apocalypse narrative underwent its greatest change following an event that upturned the Judeo-Christian world: the second destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE and the final defeat of the great revolt in Judea.

According to Harris, the defeat caused such shame and confusion that all memory of it was suppressed. From reading the Bible, he says, “you could never guess that in 68 A.D. the Jews went on to stage a full-scale revolution that required the attention of six Roman Legions under the command of two future Roman Emperors before it was brought under control [in 73 CE].
According to Josephus, 1.1 million Jewish non-combatants died during the siege and military takeover and 97,000 Jews were enslaved. Jerusalem was burned to the ground and the survivors dispersed. The long awaited Jewish and Christian goal of establishing a Holy Jewish Empire was over. Defeat was total.

and especially the apocalypse are a sort of Jewish revenge fantasy.

Quote:

Religious scholar Dereck Daschke has pointed to the relationship between traumatic experience and the emergence of apocalyptic thought in post-70 CE Judaism and early Christianity. The apocalypse narrative is a collective response to the trauma of the military destruction of the Holy Land, and the sense of a “world shattered by unexpected, unexplained pain and disillusionment.” In this light, the Day of Judgement could be seen as an all too human fantasy of final, irrevocable justice, dreamed up by a defeated religious group subjected to seemingly never-ending violent injustice. And since the Roman Empire encompassed the entirety of their then known world, the Christian apocalypse extended to the limits of that world, morphing into a universal punishment imposed on the entire human race.

Violent flashbacks, psychotic delusions and recurring fantasies of destruction and revenge are common among people who have suffered serious trauma. The early Christians may have been experiencing a kind of PTSD, which was reinforced in the echo chambers of their isolated groups. The Book of Revelation, written around 96 CE—more than twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem—reads like a psychotic hallucination, with its Jesus with eyes “aflame of fire,” wearing a garment “dipped in blood” and ruling the nations with “a rod of iron.” This is a powerful sublimated revenge fantasy.

The problem with such revenge narratives, as neuroscientists now understand, is that, as they relive the foundational trauma, they trap the victim in a loop that retraumatises them. The Apocalypse of John, the twenty-four pages that end the Bible, is the trauma nightmare on which Christianity was founded. As Michel Barkun puts it, “the entire New Testament canon is apocalyptic, in other words Apocalypticism is Christianity.”

Yet the actual Christians, Paul, Peter, and the rest? They moved past the idea of a Jewish nation and revenge. They formed ties with the Gentiles. They freed slaves. They successfully managed to destabilize the Roman Empire without a single sword being drawn. The entire NT is not apocalyptic, actually. Only Revelation. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the disciples successfully moved past their trauma, made a life for themselves, and Christianity became part of Roman society. The Roman and Greek world became the Western world.

While I do not agree with his mostly secular belief that Christianity is really just about the apocalypse, I think it is important to let go of the final struggle mentality, and simply live your life as though Christ has risen. Because he has. Jesus comes to set us free from what is troubling us, and it starts by refusing to buy the idea of some sort of judgement. The world may succeed for awhile or fail, but the real triumph is the understanding that death is not the end.

But again, it doesn't matter. Only Satan can accuse us of the notion that any of this matters.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

You’re are a little too focused on ‘apocalypse'.
That’s not what Christ said to watch for in the last days, so it’s no wonder you didn’t see what you were expecting.

He told his apostles that he had to go (after his resurrection) but that he would return. He gave many signs that would herald that event. Apocalypse was not one of them. He said most would be fat dumb and unaware, marrying and giving in marriage. They would not notice anything out of the ordinary. They would not be watching for his return. That isn’t in Revelation exclusively btw.

You really missed these basic things in your reading?

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Ultimately, we have choices,

And the choices that have been placed before you, are everlasting life, or everlasting death.

Which one have you chosen, and do you know what you must do, or not do, to inherit your particular choice.

But I will leave you to spew out your ridiculous rubbish all over someone else.

BTW, Those Jewish authorities who had the innocent Stephen stoned to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone that woman, who they accused of committing adultery, to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than he, too who she was legally married at that time, which was not the case, as she was guilty of no crime according to the temporal laws of the land.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I'm reasonably certain I know why I'm getting some resistance to this. You think you are losing something by losing the Second Coming. But I'm trying to explain to you that this is a distraction from something more important.

The Jews themselves saw reality as being in preparation for an apocalypse. They thought the Messiah would come some day in the future. They thought the Resurrection would be later on ("I am the resurrection and the life"). Jesus gave them an even larger hope. He gave them the Resurrection.

When Jesus predicts the fall of the temple, they thought there would be some great sign when the Temple fell. He warned them that plenty of false Christs will come, plenty of wars, plenty of signs on Earth or whatever. But Jesus says elsewhere, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will rebuild it." It is just a building.

And Jesus's first priority is to warn them that they personally will be taken before various officials and asked to account for their actions. Priorities: don't worry about some Second Coming, actually do remember that the officials of this world will try to bully or intimidate you, but you've got a Savior.

And you forgot about this little detail. He already HAS come again. It's called the Resurrection.

To Thomas (and alot of disciples)

Quote:

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have (Luke 24:39).

To Mary Magdalene

Quote:

Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.' Jesus said to her, 'Mary!' She turned and said to him, 'Rabboni!' (which is to say, Teacher) (John 20:14-16).

To Mary The Mother Of James, Salome, And Joanna

Quote:

And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9).

Disciples on the road

Quote:

And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had taken place. And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus himself approached, and began traveling with them. But their eyes were prevented from recognizing him (Luke 24:13-16).

Over five hundred people!

Quote:

After that he was seen by over five hundred people at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Saul

Quote:

And as he [Saul] traveled he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are your persecuting me?' And he said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting' (Acts 9:3-5).

At some point, the Earth will fade away, but Jesus says "Heaven and Earth may fade away, but my teachings will not fade away."

In fact, the Revelation at its heart is a denial of the Resurrection. "Jesus is Risen! He is Risen Indeed! (But he's going off to some phantom dimension to leave us in evil and misery until some pie in the sky day when he'll appear for a Second Coming, and the people he doesn't like, he'll grab and toss into a fire)"

No, dammit! Jesus is Risen Indeed! Period! End of Story!

And life is worth the price of living because he lives.

(This is why I have few friends, I argue with everyone)

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

(This is why I have few friends, I argue with everyone)

I honestly can’t tell who you are arguing with.
My guess would be yourself.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing unless the argument never ends.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

(This is why I have few friends, I argue with everyone)

And unsuccessfully it must be added.

Quote:

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have (Luke 24:39).

Revealing that the man Jesus was still a human being of flesh and blood at that time, and had not yet been translated from a corruptible body of matter, into the Glorious incorruptible body of brilliant and blinding light, in which he later appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.

Quote:

Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.' Jesus said to her, 'Mary!' She turned and said to him, 'Rabboni!' (which is to say, Teacher) (John 20:14-16).

And in the next verse, John 20:17; Jesus says to her (His aunty Mary Magdalene) Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Quote:

After that he was seen by over five hundred people at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6)

After first appearing to his aunty, who, although looking straight at him, did not recognise who he was until he spoke her name, and appearing also to his mother Mary and two of his sisters, one would expect him to appear next to his father 'Cleophas' the carpenter, which he did.

John 19: 25; Standing close to Jesus' cross, were his mother and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene, who, IMO was the sister of Cleophas and therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus.

In Luke 24: 13-35; We see that the next, to who one of the risen body of Christ appeared, were the carpenter ‘Cleophas’ who is also called Alphaeus, and his son Simon/Simeon the half-brother of Jesus, who was to inherit the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision after 'James the righteous,' the brother of the Lord who was born of the same womb, was killed at the instigation of the same Sadducee sect that had Jesus, the full brother to James, killed.

Although Cleophas and Simon walked and talked with one of the risen body of Christ for some kilometres to the small town of Emmaus, they did not recognise him for who he was, until Simon saw the manner in which he broke the bread.

Cleophas and his companion, then returned to Jerusalem, where the disciples, which included Simon Peter and Simon the Patriot, the only two of the twelve disciples by the name Simon, were cowering in a darkened room.

Luke 24: 33; states that there were only 11 disciples present in the room that night, while John 20: 19 to 25; Reveals that one of the twelve, who was absent that evening when Jesus first appeared to his disciples, was Thomas Didymus Jude another cousin of Jesus, the one who was called the Twin, although nowhere does the bible say that he was an actual twin or whether he just held a striking resemblance to someone else, perhaps one with who he shared a common grandfather, ‘Alexander Helios.’

But back to Cleophas, who said to the disciples, who would have opened the door for him, "He has risen, he appeared to Simon," who was of course Simon the son, or adopted son of Cleophas and half-brother to Jesus, and the one who succeeded ‘James the younger’ as the head of the church founded by their brother Jesus.

It was then that a figure appeared in that dimly lit room in the form that they recognised as Jesus, the following week, Jesus appeared in the locked room, where this time, Thomas who was called the ‘TWIN’ was with the other disciples.

Luke here, reveals that Jesus did not appear to his disciples, which included Simon Peter and Simon the patriot, until after Cleophas had said to them; “He has risen, he appeared to Simon,” who was not Simon Peter or Simon the patriot.

1 Corinthians 15:5; states that Jesus appeared to Cephas first, and then to the Twelve, which appears to contradict the scriptures that state the first males to who Jesus had appeared, were Cleophas and his companion, Simeon.

Did Paul, get it wrong, or did Paul originally say that Jesus appeared to Simon/Simeon first, and then to the Twelve, and later translators of Paul’s letters, were to misinterpret Paul’s “Simon” to mean Simon Peter, also called Cephas?

See John 21: 1 to 12; Then there were the seven disciples who were fishing on Lake Galilee having no success at all, when someone on the bank told them to throw their net on the right side of the boat in which they caught 153 fishes, later on while sitting down to eat with the person who had a fire prepared with fish on it and some bread, not one of the seven disciples of Jesus who had walked and talked with him, dared to ask who he was, but they understood that he was of the risen body of Christ. Even when he ascended up into heaven as a cloud, some of the 11 disciples doubted that it was he.

When Thomas called the ‘TWIN,’ who was not present on the night of the first appearance of Jesus, was told that he had been resurrected, Thomas Jude refused to believe them, saying, “unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

The following week, when he eventually saw the risen Jesus, he then believed in the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus said to him; ‘Do you now believe because you have seen me? How happy are those who believe without seeing me!”

Who were the saints of the first resurrection, who came out of their graves three days after Jesus was crucified and entered the city and revealed themselves to many?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I had assumed it was you.

:shrug:

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

This sounds kinda Gnostic.

Jesus was not a ghost, nor a human being. He was a transcendent presence who could now alter his body however he wished. Read the WHOLE passage, once again, in context.

From John

Quote:

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

When Mary first met him, he had not ascended yet. But later, he had a body that was solid enough to be touched yet was able to pass through locked doors. He has a body that could breathe on people with.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Jesus was not a ghost, nor a human being. He was a transcendent presence who could now alter his body however he wished. Read the WHOLE passage, once again, in context.

Do you believe that he was a human being before he was crucified?

In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”

So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the Anti-Christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, whose humanlike body was able to pass through Mary’s Hymen without breaking it, and who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

And those deceivers have got you by the short and curlies young fellow.

Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food into turning stones into bread. Even though the scriptures state that Jesus was hungry, when Satan tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established, in the minds of the gullible, whose minds, like yours, are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete that one would need a sledge hammer to crack them open and allow the light of truth to shine in.

So, I'll leave you to wallow in the darkness of your own ignorance, until when, and if, you are ever interested in seeking for the truth.

1 Reply

John's Heaven or God's Heaven?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know