John's Heaven or God's Heaven?

@The Anointed,

Let me explain something, again.

Jesus, according to John, is the Word that became Flesh.

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome (understood) it.

The birth of Jesus did not create Jesus. Let me say this again.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS DID NOT CREATE JESUS. He was with God in the beginning. Jesus is part of the eternal Trinity. Just as Jesus did not "create" the Holy Spirit.

This is what "begotten not made" means. Mary only gave birth to Christ, she was NOT Mother of God. When Jesus was born, he became incarnate, God dwelled in a human body. So yes, Jesus is human. But he didn't become God's son. We became the Body of Christ when he died.

Before birth = Word (part of God, with Mankind in God's Image)
After Birth = Full Divine, Fully Human (A human incarnate with the Word)
After Death = Word (part of God & Mankind). Humans become the Body of Christ.

If you bothered to learn your creeds, this wouldn't be like pulling teeth to teach you this stuff. This is stuff that Christians should know.

:rolls_eyes:

That said, since I now do not believe in the Revelation, I think I'll have troubles saying most creeds. Good thing I've got my own religion, I suppose.

You are describing Gnosticism. Gnosticism was one of the reasons for the Nicene Creed. Among other heresies.
But I do not accept Revelation as Canon. The early Church rejected it, but after about 2 centuries, the wicked Roman Catholic church foisted it on the public. Before that, the Eastern Orthodox and several other churches rejected it as false text. Then it was forced on the public. Martin Luther rejected it. Mark Twain rejected it. So did Jefferson, I believe (mainly on the grounds that he despised references to the supernatural, but yes it says he rejected the Second Coming). The second coming is a false tradition.

As for Jesus, yes, I accept the official Nicene Creed take on Jesus. This describes his state during life.

After his death, I meant. After his death, he is neither a spirit (which would mean he's dead) nor strictly flesh and blood.

Interestingly, you shouldn't be accepting the Second Coming either. The return of Jesus described in Revelation is precisely that sort of odd being described in non-Christian scriptures.
Jesus wept. He probably blushed. He certainly got mad. And it is said that he had a disciple that he loved. He was a human being, and that didn't totally change after his crucifixion.

Yet the Revelation's Jesus is a passionless asshole who kills off sinners instead of healing them like all through the Gospel.

3 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

From Quora

Quote:

Martin Luther, one of the founders of Protestantism, advocated that the Book of Revelation, as well as Hebrews, James, and Jude, should be excluded from the New Testament. Luther also advocated that certain books of the Old Testament, known collectively as the Apocrypha, should also be excluded.

Most Protestants have followed Luther’s suggestion regarding the Old Testament, but none have followed his advice about Revelation, Hebrews, James, and Jude.

Technically, he included them, yet put them in an appendix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

His reasons behind excluding Revelation.
https://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Quote:

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
---------------------------------------------------------------
7. This short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book.

In other words, some third party appears to have edited out his objections, and forced him to include it.

I have not followed his advice on Hebrews, James, or Jude (although I dislike salvation by works theology, this is not the dealbreaker that a monstrous version of God and Jesus is).

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Jesus, according to John, is the Word that became Flesh.

What a load of B.S. Jesus, according to the woman who sits on the seven hills of Rome, is the word that became flesh. She's got you by the short and curlies hasn't she mate?

Quote:

The birth of Jesus did not create Jesus. Let me say this again.

You can repeat saying that from now till dooms day, and If I were to believe you, we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Quote:

This is what "begotten not made" means. Mary only gave birth to Christ, she was NOT Mother of God.

Indeed, Mary was not the mother of God. But she did give birth to Jesus, who was filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour on the day he was baptised, when the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee."

The man Jesus, who taught us to pray, "'OUR' Father, who art in heaven, etc". Jesus who said to 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:

God dwelled in a human body. So yes, Jesus is human. But he didn't become God's son.

The Lord God our saviour, 'THE SON OF MAN' the "MOST HIGH' in the creation, who mentally descended from his high point in time, and who was chosen by Abraham as his Lord God and saviour, said to Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command, and whosoever will not heed MY WORDS, which he shall speak in MY NAME, I will surely punish, etc.”

Ignoring your statements, (Before birth = Word (part of God, with Mankind in God's Image) After Birth = Full Divine, Fully Human (A human incarnate with the Word) After Death = Word (part of God & Mankind). Humans become the Body of Christ.)

Only an Idiot would believe than an animal who is fully lion, could also be fully giraffe, they're either one or the other. They've certainly got you by the short and curlies haven't they?

Quote:

If you bothered to learn your creeds, this wouldn't be like pulling teeth to teach you this stuff. This is stuff that Christians should know.

Unlike you, and those poor souls who call themselves 'Christians", I have never been deceived by the creeds of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

Quote:

That said, since I now do not believe in the Revelation, I think I'll have troubles saying most creeds. Good thing I've got my own religion, I suppose.

Glad to see that you admit that you have created your own religion, which has nothing to do with the holy scriptures.

Quote:

As for Jesus, yes, I accept the official Nicene Creed take on Jesus. This describes his state during life.

Yea, we know that you believe most of what the Mother church who sits on the seven hills of Rome teaches.

Quote:

Interestingly, you shouldn't be accepting the Second Coming either. The return of Jesus described in Revelation is precisely that sort of odd being described in non-Christian scriptures.

If I were to reject the "Second Coming" I would be seen as a biblical ignoramus, who rejects the Holy Scriptures, which state in Hebrews 9:28; so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of 'MANY'; and he will appear a 'SECOND TIME', not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation 'TO THOSE WHO ARE WAITING FOR HIM

Are you waiting for him to return a 'SECOND TIME', you poor sod?

Quote:

Yet the Revelation's Jesus is a passionless asshole who kills off sinners instead of healing them like all through the Gospel.

Are you referring to what "YOUR' passionless asshole 'JESUS' who kills off sinners, said in Matthew's Gospel chapter 25: 41; that the "SON OF MAN' the MOST HIGH in the creation, who is our Lord God and saviour, will say to those on his left; "Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the Devil and his messengers.

Jude 1: 14; Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying; “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, To execute judgement on all, and convince all that are ungodly among them all of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

And you have the audacity, to call Jesus a passionless asshole who kills off sinners. May the Lord God our saviour have mercy upon you.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Good thing I've got my own religion, I suppose.

Nothing inherently wrong with that, but do you ever stop and ask yourself, 'How is that working for you?'.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

It's the Word became Flesh.

Okay, your idea is that Jesus was born to normal parents, then some time in his adult life, he is baptized, and all of a sudden, God comes up, adopts him, and voila he is Son of God. I assume I mentioned everything with no lostdetails.

Why would that happen?

In science, we have have certain laws like repeatability in results. No other person after being baptized has had a dove descend on them. Ever, actually. It isn't just a matter of not being perfect enough, we humans cannot be perfect enough to please God enoygh for God to make us any more than generalized children of God. But even if it fails that idea, it fails a more important rule, that of cause and effect. Which works better, a rock being placed on a hillside by a divine hand, or a rock push up a hill, the n rolled until it tumbles down? Not only does the mere act of God hand placing a rock disrupt the careful reality (fragile, really) that he himself made, but the rock will have legit no momentum. It'll just sit there. Whereas iif God made a rock gow out of the Earth, it detached, wind and rain shape it, and then God makes an earthquake, the rock will "naturally" fall down the hill, even though actually God expended a equivalent amount of effort as a man hauling it up and rolling it down. There is a way to do things for best results. And there are ways that render a Deus Ex Machina. That's termed as a literary device, but it's also an effect produced if God were to do something so awkward that it screws with how reality and free will work. A single human parent pregnancy? Produces the Son of God, which in turn spreads miracles, renews faith, and when he dies on a cross, awakens hope for an afterlife. There's a sort of spiritual momentum that happens when you do things the right way while doing things awkwardly produces a sort of stagnation of events. Suddenly adopting a perfectly human child is so awkward that it leads people to try to get rebaptized, in hopes that God will pick them as Messiah. However Jesus is Son of God once for all, died once for all, and was raised once for all. There is no sense of placing a rock oddly on a hill, but a very real sense of long miraculous chain of events.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well, if my life were to be judged by my faith, I would say "Not well." But that philosophy is works theology. As a good Protestant ( no matter what oddities I've picked up along the way), I understand that one's life isn't defined by the number of people on a friends list, the amount of success in the office, but that there is grace. All of us have sinned or fallen short, but this is specifically to lead us back in grace to Christ.

But if I were to say how is my faith working out for me, I'd say, "Better..." What do you know of science? Repeated tests, questioning bad results, stuff like that? I mean, you can probably explain the scientific method better than I. If something doesn't work, we don't trust the consensus , we test and reject the assumptions.
With me so far?
Well, when you have your own religion (spirituality, really), you are allowed to adjust results that don't work. Or you can just say it's right by fiat, but we see the results of that with Islam, people won't go along with stupid and obviously off-base results, so you have to fight them until they submit. Or you have to declare dogma which must be accepted as condition for belonging.

You know about the so-called "scientific consensus" abour climate change? Well, there's a book in my library apparently called "Apocalypse Never" and I assume like the online article Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Climate Change Predictions, it tells of how the date of end times keeps being pushed back.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Because it doesn't work, they have to keep adjusting for their paranoia. But what if the sky isn't falling? And what if the very thing causing terrible events to happen were actually our collective hysteria? We settle down about The Plague, and there is no longer any need to follow along with nonsense about mandatory jabs or chips or IDs. Stop panicking and the game is over. THEY Lost. Apocalypse thinking is dangerous precisely because rather than being on guard as Christians (being wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves) we are freaked out in preparation for some big event. That allows various bad events to become self-fulfilling, because we cannot use chillness and question this reality. Think of a weather forecast. If everyone believes in the bad storm, milk, eggs, bread, and toilet paper get fished out. If someone's intention is to create shortage panic, they can do so easily by promoting fear of big storms, which in turn creates shortage panic, which they in turn use as a weapon for control. But if people say, "You cried wolf before, and it didn't come," suddenly that takes the wind out of the sails of that prediction.

Like climate change, the Second Coming has been predicted to many events. Those dates have always been wrong, and the people predicting them are filled with persistent unease, all their lives. If however, you accept the premise that Jesus has been raised and the Kingdom of Heaven is among ( within) us, then you need not worry about this future event, because you know the Christ loves you.

When I make my own religion, it means I can approach it with my own rules. And as a comparative theologian raised in the shadow of science (back when "science" didn't mean consensus), I choose approach to be to view religion almost as if it were a type of science. If something doesn't fit right, I discard it, and do another idea. So yes, not perfect but, "Better..." Before I abandoned this idea, I was hella depressed. I can't say that I'm 100% chipper, but without the burden of possibly having to prepare for everything to end, I don't feel like I'm living in a bomb shelter. There are still things that I equate as being sucky (I haven't changed my stance that vaccines and masks are a terrible thing to do to society, because they are, but I don't get hung up if other people decide to take them; it doesn't change the fact that those making them want them to be the Mark of the Beast, and many of those fearing them fear that. But my priority has now changed to the emphasis on the moral sickness of trying to end the world), but I'm feeling better than the depressed mess I was.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

I have the audacity to call Revelation's "Jesus" that. Not Jesus. Second Coming "Jesus" is a dick who sentences supposedly sentences a third of the world to perish. But under grace theology, it is ironically more than that. Because if the worthy join "Jesus" in that place, Not Once Of Us is worthy enough. Not me, not you, not even the Gospel Jesus is worthy enough to make the cut.

And all that results in the eventual discard of that particular text.

I can show a snapshot of my current Bible, and you'll notice a tear line where about 10 or 20 pages are ripped away.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

I was not asking for any comparison of your religion with anything else.
Only whether it made YOU truly satisfied inside.

You don’t have to convince me or anyone else. Just You.

Not throwing rocks bulma, I was a lot older than you by the time asked myself the question.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Okay, your idea is that Jesus was born to normal parents, then some time in his adult life, he is baptized, and all of a sudden, God comes up, adopts him, and voila he is Son of God. I assume I mentioned everything with no lostdetails.

Nope! it's not my idea mate, it's all recorded in the Holy Scriptures, but I suppose you have torn those pages out also.

Quote:

However Jesus is Son of God once for all, died once for all, and was raised once for all.

So, your God has never been able to raise a human being, born of the seed of Adam to everlasting life. But only the dead humanlike body of his eternal and immortal son, in which he walked the earth disguised as a descendant of Adam.

Not much hope there for we Human beings.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

I can show a snapshot of my current Bible, and you'll notice a tear line where about 10 or 20 pages are ripped away.

Revelation 22: 18-19; I, John, solemnly warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to his or her punishment the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

You are to blame for that which is to come upon you. You can blame no one but yourself.

Now you will see if the words recorded by John in the book of Revelation, are inspired by the Lord, or not.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Then yeah, I'm fine.

Today I made a copy of my Bible on Amazon KDP.

It was hell though, and it was too hard to remove everything I wanted to remove. Basically, I wanted to clean up the New Testament of all of the especially sick things written about in the Letters, and by Jesus. I finally came to the conclusion that Jesus is a human like the rest of us, God is the God of humans (which is why in the worst of times, he behaves like a ******* bully, the disciples and forefathers were products of their time, and didn't see anything horribly wrong with destroying 1/3 of the Earth, and threw up my hands. I can still say it is one of the most edited Bibles, short of the Jefferson Bible and the Slave Bible (Aiken Abridged Bible, if it ever publishes). If it does publish, I'm not making adjustments, despite a fervent wish to somehow make Jesus apologize for his Dad's more violent actions. That took like half a day of solid work.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

Quote:

Nope! it's not my idea mate, it's all recorded in the Holy Scriptures, but I suppose you have torn those pages out also.

Get a new Bible. Not even my heavily edited one, yours is about as tinkered with as something I literally knowingly worked on for 5+ hours. KJV does not say the word "Today." Nor the NIV. Nor New Living Translation. Nor NRSV. In fact, short of a version specifically made to spread heresy, I cannot think of a single Bible that does use "Today." This introduces the heresy of Adoptionism. Which I know should totally be the one to talk about Heresies, but I do not alter the nature of Jesus in any real way from the Gospel. Yet some of the apocalyptic texts (which from my edits were clearly shoehorned in at every opportunity, sometimes talking about Jesus's coming again to judge the Earth where there was no good cause for it), introduced two very wrong ideas.
1. Random Conditional Grace - Nothing you do can earn grace. But if God judges you sinful (apparently according to the opinion of the disciples), you are hardcore screwed.
2. Predestination - Worse, you're picked as elect before you're even born. You are not elected because you are an earnest person who loves God and wants to be loved by God. Nope, you can be a complete douchebag I guess, but if God elects you, you'll automatically learn what you can do to be saved.
*3. Oh, and btw, that grace thing? You have to do stuff to be saved, so we didn't really mean it, even though we end Revelations with "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." Well uhhh except for people who write in books is tear out pages in disgust. Or whores, dogs, sorcerers, or freaking 1/3 of the population.

Quote:

So, your God has never been able to raise a human being, born of the seed of Adam to everlasting life. But only the dead humanlike body of his eternal and immortal son, in which he walked the earth disguised as a descendant of Adam.

Jesus is born of the seed of Adam. And he is born of the seed of God.

Seriously, seriously, get a Bible that gives your real theology.
https://carm.org/doctrine-and-theology/jesus-two-natures-god-and-man/

Not a disguise.
An incarnation.

Any real theologian will be able to explain the difference between an avatar (a human "image" or disguise of a deity) from Hinduism, and an incarnation (actually having a Spirit enter a body and having the body, not the Spirit be born.

Should I draw a picture for you?

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Quote:

Revelation 22: 18-19; I, John, solemnly warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to his or her punishment the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

You are to blame for that which is to come upon you. You can blame no one but yourself.

Now you will see if the words recorded by John in the book of Revelation, are inspired by the Lord, or not.

They are not.

John speaks for God here. In other words, he takes God's name in vain.

John is not in any position to tell us what God will or won't do. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else but God himself can make this claim.

Jesus however gives a stern warning against false prophets. And we are to be discerning about what that is. I trust Jesus's stern warning, and I trust that God is not the asshole Revelation says he is. I do trust that God is capricious from personal experience, but God has blessed me with a loving family, and I have never wanted for food or things to do (I wish I had more companions, but I'm somewhat emotionally messed up so it's probably a blessing).

Therefore, "John" is a liar and a false prophet. Also, this passage appears to be Pseudepigrapha, and "John" isn't really John.

Quote:

Revelation 22: 18-19; I, a liar under a false name, solemnly warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to his or her punishment the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

Yeah. I'll take my chances. For I have faith in God, not idols.

Having personally edited the Bible today, I can tell you that most or all the imagery appears to come from Ezekiel (which I also left out, because it sounds like a drug trip more than anything spiritual). And the book of life? Almost entirely the invention of Revelation. Why would I trust something that this man made up just to hold over our heads?

God holds the power over life and death. Not a book entry that we can invalidate simply by adding or taking out a word from a page of Revelation. Yes, if he God a dick he could totally abuse us. Instead, he uses his power to heal the sick, raise a little dead girl, and feed large crowds of people. Oh yeah, and to prove to a bunch of people that death isn't a real threat. But certain people spread a rumor that that last part wasn't a real thing.

Quote:

12After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13telling them, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day.

The Second Coming is another such plot. "Don't focus on the multiple accounts of Jesus reappearing. Think about the JOY you'll have when Jesus comes again, and you can see him in glory!" Nice trick! The problem is, (1) it's a revenge fantasy and (2) Jesus came again, and you can see him any time.

In fact, by fixating on "Jesus will come again soon," you are convincing yourself that there is some sort of reason why you can't.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

KJV does not say the word "Today." Nor the NIV. Nor New Living Translation. Nor NRSV. In fact, short of a version specifically made to spread heresy, I cannot think of a single Bible that does use "Today." This introduces the heresy of Adoptionism.

KJV Hebrews 1: 5; For to which of the angels said He at anytime say, "Thou art my Son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee"

RSV Hebrews 1: 5; For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, ‘TODAY’ I have begotten thee"

The Amplified version, Hebrews 1: 5; For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, ‘TODAY’ I have begotten thee"

Good News Bible, Hebrews 1: 5; For God never said to any of his angels: “You are my Son; ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father.”

RSV Hebrews 5: 5; So also, Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, ‘TODAY’ I have begotten thee".

KJV Hebrews 5: 5; So also, Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but He that said unto him, "Thou art my Son, ‘TODAY’ I have begotten thee".

Amplified version Hebrews 5:5; So too, Christ, The Messiah, did not exalt Himself to be made a high priest, but he was appointed and exalted by Him Who said to him, ‘”You are my Son, ‘TODAY’ I have begotten You.”

Good News Bible, Hebrews 5: 5; In the same way, Christ did not take upon himself the honour of being a high priest. Instead, God said to him: “You are my Son; ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father.”

Look out mate, them men in white coats are coming for you.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

We all, believers and non believers, have a version of Heaven/Paradise to keep marching next morning...most versions if not all are stupid!
So which one do you prefer?

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Hebrews is falsely referencing the passage.

Just as Moses supposedly struck a rock twice of maybe was told to strike a rock but didn't really mean it.

He remembered it wrong, I guess? Or maybe Martin Luther is right, and Hebrews, Revelation and a few others should have been left out of canon. In any case none of these say that FOR THE ORIGINAL gospel passage. Get a new Bible.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure we humans can't even imagine a world without pain and suffering without somehow lobotomizing humanity. I'd have to make up my own.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Hebrews is falsely referencing the passage.

Well, you've torn the guts out of the book of Revelation, you've got rid of the book of Ezekiel, now you want to get rid of the book of Hebrews.

What about the prophet Isaiah, who says in 63: 1- “Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?”

“It is the LORD, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory.”
2“Why is his clothing so red, like that of someone who tramples grapes to make wine?”

The LORD answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes, and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. 4I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies. 5Is 59.16I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. 6In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them. I poured out their lifeblood on the ground.”

Oh, you'll have to kick the prophet Isaiah out of the bible also, you can't have God seen as a righteous Judge and defender of his chosen children, who the surrounding nations would drive them into the sea.

You have defamed the Jesus as revealed in Revelation, you have rubbished his beloved nephew and disciple John, How many more of the Lord's prophets will you get rid of?

Quote:

Just as Moses supposedly struck a rock twice of maybe was told to strike a rock but didn't really mean it.

You haven't even got a clue as to why Moses was forbidden entry into the promised land, have you? You keep on about Moses striking the rock, which has no bearing on the reason why God was so angry with him and Aaron, you poor biblically ignorant sick child.

2 Replies

@The Anointed,

Hebrews 5:5, you agree?

Well, the baptism of Jesus is in all four Gospels. We will see if any of these say "TODAY."

Mark 1:11

Quote:

American Standard Version

Mark 1:11 (ASV) And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
The Bible in Basic English

Mark 1:11 (BBE) And a voice came out of heaven, You are my dearly loved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Common English Bible

Mark 1:11 (CEB) And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha

Mark 1:11 (CEBA) And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
The Complete Jewish Bible

Mark 1:11 (CJB) then a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you."
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Mark 1:11 (CSB) And a voice came from heaven: You are My beloved Son; I take delight in You!
The Darby Translation

Mark 1:11 (DBY) And there came a voice out of the heavens: *Thou* art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight.
English Standard Version

Mark 1:11 (ESV) And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
Good News Translation

Mark 1:11 (GNT) And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha

Mark 1:11 (GNTA) And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
GOD'S WORD Translation

Mark 1:11 (GW) A voice from heaven said, "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you."
Hebrew Names Version

Mark 1:11 (HNV) A voice came out of the sky, "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Jubilee Bible 2000

Mark 1:11 (JUB) and there came a voice from heaven, <em>saying</em>, Thou art my dear Son, in whom I delight.
King James Version

Mark 1:11 (KJV) And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Not today. No matter how much you want to add it in. But we'll not stop there.

John 1:29-34

Quote:

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

Doesn't even mention God's words here.

Matthew 3:17

Quote:

American Standard Version

Matthew 3:17 (ASV) and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The Bible in Basic English

Matthew 3:17 (BBE) And a voice came out of heaven, saying, This is my dearly loved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Common English Bible

Matthew 3:17 (CEB) A voice from heaven said, "This is my Son whom I dearly love; I find happiness in him."
Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha

Matthew 3:17 (CEBA) A voice from heaven said, "This is my Son whom I dearly love; I find happiness in him."
The Complete Jewish Bible

Matthew 3:17 (CJB) and a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with him."
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Matthew 3:17 (CSB) And there came a voice from heaven: This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him!
The Darby Translation

Matthew 3:17 (DBY) and behold, a voice out of the heavens saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight.
English Standard Version

Matthew 3:17 (ESV) and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Good News Translation

Matthew 3:17 (GNT) Then a voice said from heaven, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am pleased."
Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha

Matthew 3:17 (GNTA) Then a voice said from heaven, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am pleased."
GOD'S WORD Translation

Matthew 3:17 (GW) Then a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love--my Son with whom I am pleased."
Hebrew Names Version

Matthew 3:17 (HNV) Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Jubilee Bible 2000

Matthew 3:17 (JUB) and, behold, a voice from the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
King James Version

Matthew 3:17 (KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Not today.

Luke 3:22

Quote:

American Standard Version

Luke 3:22 (ASV) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
The Bible in Basic English

Luke 3:22 (BBE) The Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove, and a voice came from heaven, saying, You are my dearly loved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Common English Bible

Luke 3:22 (CEB) and the Holy Spirit came down on him in bodily form like a dove. And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (CEBA) and the Holy Spirit came down on him in bodily form like a dove. And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
The Complete Jewish Bible

Luke 3:22 (CJB) the Ruach HaKodesh came down on him in physical form like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you."
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Luke 3:22 (CSB) and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a physical appearance like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are My beloved Son. I take delight in You!
The Darby Translation

Luke 3:22 (DBY) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon him; and a voice came out of heaven, *Thou* art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight.
English Standard Version

Luke 3:22 (ESV) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
Good News Translation

Luke 3:22 (GNT) and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (GNTA) and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
GOD'S WORD Translation

Luke 3:22 (GW) and the Holy Spirit came down to him in the form of a dove. A voice from heaven said, "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you."
Hebrew Names Version

Luke 3:22 (HNV) and the Ruach HaKodesh descended in a bodily form, as a dove on him; and a voice came out of the sky, saying "You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased."
Jubilee Bible 2000

Luke 3:22 (JUB) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee is my delight.
King James Version

Luke 3:22 (KJV) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Not today. As you can see, all four gospels have a baptism account, yet NOT ONE of them uses the word "today" and I have referenced multiple translations.

Hebrews misquoted, introducing this heresy.

But it is not gospel. He didn't get it from anywhere. He introduced a heresy either intentionally, or through sloppy translating.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

I have not defamed Jesus. Jesus is already defamed in Revelation, turning him into a murderous psychopath, who has literally killed everyone on the face of the Earth. The righteous who refuse the Mark either are caused to die, or they die when the wicked slay them. Yeahh... so John having run out of people to psychopathically slaughter in Jesus's name has to raise the dead in order so he can kill them off again! Only this creates contradiction after contradiction.

Here's what the book I've been reading says...

Quote:

There is one contradiction that the author of the Apocalypse makes that stands out more than any other, and it betrays John's Jewish mindset, which is evidently still steeped in the old ways of the Law of Moses through which salvation is obtained through works. This alone should have proven that John's vision could not have originated with Jesus, and that the angel that spoke in Jesus' name when John received his revelations was not who he claimed to be. One should keep in mind that Paul, during his travels in Asia Minor in the province of Galatia, warned that there would be deceitful workers masquerading as apostles of Christ, or an angel from heaven preaching a gospel other than the one he preached. He reminds us that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light". (2 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 1:7-8). Reading Paul's warning, one cannot help but recognise how familiar those words are with respect to the Apocalypse and the source of the vision that is presented within its pages. As we shall see, John of Patmos preaches a different Gospel from that which Paul and the mainstream Christian community teach. Furthermore, an unnamed angel is the source of John's "vision", who claims to be passing on the words of Jesus. That should give anyone who reads the Apocalypse a reason for serious concern. What were the qualifications of Paul that allowed him to teach on both Jewish and Christian matters? Paul was a circumcised Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5) who had once been a Pharisee (Acts 26:5) and had been tutored by the most famous Jewish sage of his time - Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was a teacher of the law, and he was held in high respect by all the people (Acts 5:33). So if anybody knew all there was to know about the Law of Moses, Paul did. Now listen to what happened when Paul was imprisoned with Silas at Philippi, during which time an earthquake occurred which struck the place of their internment. First, the doors of the cells were opened and prisoner chains loosened, probably due to the stones being spit apart upon which the chains had been fixed. Seeing the hand of God at work and greatly distressed, the jailer cries out to Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" Without any reference to good works or the Law, Paul simply answers,"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household " (Acts 16:30-31). Did you notice that not only would the jailer be saved if he believed in Jesus, but so would his family? From this we see that Paul, whose knowledge of the Law was very extensive, has now rejected any Jewish idea that salvation can be obtained through works according to the Law. Later, he expands upon this in his letters to the Galatians and Romans. For example, in Galatians he says: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:6) When Paul penned those words to the Galatians, he was reacting to the Jewish Christians in that region of Asia Minor, who insisted that adherence to the Law of Moses was necessary if one was to be saved. As far as these Jews were concerned, Gentiles were expected to follow the Law of Moses, and they believed that everyone would be judged according to their works. On this, Paul totally disagreed.

In other words, Paul learned from Jesus what grace was. And he barely knew Jesus having come after Jesus's apparent death. If he knew this, then this "John" definitely would have learned it. This is a Jewish apocalypse, not a Christian one.

Jesus desires all to be saved. John thinks Jesus wants to come to judge the world, but the letters tell us in no uncertain terms that nobody is worthy enough to be in God's presence. So that paradise at the end? Just a pipe dream unless everyone gets to go. After all, Jesus was picky enough in Revelation to sentence the entire world.

Suppose I were Jesus. Who should I judge?
The anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers? After all, they aren't being safe!
Or what about the woke? After all, they are merciless hypocrites that willingly throw businesses and even people suffering from other conditions to "flatten the curve" (COVID positive ppl got denied basic service at stores and restaurants, and even one got denied a heart transplant).
Who? Quickly now!

0 Replies

John's Heaven or God's Heaven?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know