Bible Feedback?

John was the author of Revelation. But it was a different "John" – John of Patmos

It wasn't John at all.

The source materialfor my edits, The Apocalypse Deception by Fred Harding, makes it clear that the writer of John was well educated in Greek. John the disciple (who did not write John, because in the boat trip, both the Disciple Jesus Loved and John were there, and we first hear mention of this disciple AFTER the resurrection of Lazarus, and they legit state while Jesus weeps "how he loved him!" ) is mentioned by Jesus as sharing the cup of martyrdom when he and his brother get killed off later. The author goes on to say that the text of Revelation is very Jewish, that it seems to be the writing of a Jewish heretic who know of Christ but hated Paul and the other disciples (I have an image of the Fire Lord in Avatar, as he waited until Paul and the others were dead and could not oppose him to spread this crap). He's what is called an Ebionite (believes in adoptionism and upholding old tradition like circumcision), and is identified as Cerinthus. In any case, Revelation is like the religious version of global warming. It's been more than 50 years of models for climate change, and over 1500 or so, fsince Revelation 's official canonization and no second coming. Besides, the point of the Second Coming, is that you rejected the first one.

It was "John" of Patmos, not "John" the disciple. It's still hogwash.

John of Patmos wasn't John of Patmos. Is what I'm saying.

- He made the persecution story up to lend credibility to the narrative.
- His name wasn't even John
- His story of an angel telling him this revelation is at best this angel.

(That's Lucifer, for those who haven't watched the show)
- And the prophecies either do not make sense (be super careful to know this number "666" only in some versions it's "616", ummmm so be super careful to know that number?) or appear to be devised as methods to spread confusion, fear, and hatred.
-Oh yes, and the entire thing reads like an accusation against God and Jesus. Do you know what Satan's official duty is? He is an Accuser.
- Lastly, as I've been editing the Bible, inevitably I've been reading. After Noah, God gives a shiny pretty rainbow and makes a promise that he'll never again destroy the Earth. In other words, it is a big fat lie from a pathetic LOSER who wants to tell us how he's more badass than God. Nobody is more badass than God. Not even this guy.

Uhhhh wrong picture of Cloud.

The author known as John of Patmos was not the disciple known as John. Is what I'm saying.

Are you seeing angels or talking to them? Careful you might get pregnant!

John of Patmos, was John the young beloved nephew of Jesus, who took his mother Mary into his house and cared for her after Jesus had been crucified.

Young John, the son of Zebedee and Salome the sister of Jesus, was the beloved disciple of Jesus who was the author of Revelation, but although he did not actually write the gospel of John, it is recorded in the scriptures that it was written by others from the memoirs left behind by John the beloved who rested his head on the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper.

It was not uncommon for men in Northern Israel in the days of Jesus to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek and one in Aramaic.

Joseph the Hebrew, the son of Alexander Helios III/Heli 'A FATHER OF RENOWN', and a threat to Herod the Great’s rulership, was murdered by Herod in 13 B.C.

Joseph was also called Cleophas, the masculine form of Cleopatra, which name in Greek means “OF A RENOWN FATHER’ is also called Alphaeus, which is the Aramaic, meaning “OF A RENOWN FATHER’.

In the subject Guide of Young’s Analytical concordance, it is said that Cleophas who is one and the same as Alpheaus the father of James the younger, the only full brother to Jesus, was the husband of Mary.

Why, while hanging on the cross, did Jesus entrust his mother (Mary, the wife of Cleophas) into the care of his beloved disciple John, who he had surnamed "Son of Thunder," when his mother had a husband, and two more biological sons, Joseph and James the younger, plus two step-sons Jude and Simeon to care for her?

Believing from scripture that Mary had remarried and had borne James the younger of her three biological sons, to Alpheaus/Cleophas, who had two sons, or adopted sons, “Simeon and Jude” who were born of another woman, (Who was possibly Mary Magdalene, from who, Jesus had driven out seven demons, and who was (I believe) the sister of Joseph/Cleophas/Alphaeus, and therefore the sister-in-law to Mary the wife of Cleophas, as well as being the aunty of Jesus and James, the biological sons of her brother,’ Joseph the son of Heli.) we must now ask the question, ---------did Joseph ben Jacob, Mary’s first husband and Father to young Joseph the second son of Mary of whom we know so little, DIE, or was he still alive at the time of the death of Jesus who was Mary’s first born son?

John 19: 41; Joseph of Arimathea, laid the body of Jesus in a new tomb in which no one had ever been buried. And Luke 23: 53; Joseph of Arimathea, [who is believed by many to be the half-brother of Jesus,] laid the body of Jesus in his own "FAMILY TOMB WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN USED," which would suggest that the father of Joseph from Arimathea was still alive.

If this is the case, then we would be faced with the fact that Joseph ben Jacob, who would have only been in his early sixties when Jesus died, must have divorced Mary at some period, shortly after she had borne to him a son, before issuing her with a bill of divorce sometime after the death of Herod the Great, freeing her from their marriage of convenience, to hide the fact that her son ‘Jesus’ was the son of Joseph/Alphaeus/Cleophas, the son of Alexander Helios III, an actual heir to the throne of King David, which marriage had been organized by the Jewish zealots in Nazareth, in whose care, Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios III, was entrusted, when her father was murdered when she was only 7years old.

And a copy of that bill of divorce would have been kept in the filing systems of the scribes in the Temple, and it would appear that Joseph, who wanted to live in Judea after returning from Egypt, had raised his son and namesake "Joseph the son of Mary" by himself in the town of Arimathea: this being the reason why so little is known of Joseph the son of Mary, and why James the younger of her three biological sons, is always placed before Joseph, her second born son.

But if Mary had remarried while her past husband was still alive, which was absolutely legal according to the law of Moses in those days, as it is today, she would have been seen to be living in a state of adultery according to the new and controversial teaching of Jesus, which stated that anyone who remarries while their current spouse is still alive, they are committing adultery, and the Jewish authorities would have been right onto him. This is of course, exactly what we see in scripture.

The religious authorities of those days were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery, that the hypocritical priests having access to the documents in the Temple, thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.

Pointing to his mother, who was among the women who followed him from Galilee and ministered to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronizing voice, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery." (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) "In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?" They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people. See John 8: 1 to 11.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to. Those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman 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.

Jesus turned the tables on them by saying, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, perhaps he may have written, "As ye judge, so shall ye be judged." Most men in those days, who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and taken younger wives, and according to the new teaching of Jesus, they would have been as guilty as the woman that they were falsely accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, "Is there no one left to condemn you?" No one Lord she answered. "Well then," said Jesus, "I do not condemn you either. Go, but don’t sin again," and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, Simeon, Judas, and James the younger: and this is the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, "Mary the wife of Cleophas," into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Her husband Cleophas/Alphaeus and his sons, James, Simeon and Jude, did not abandon Mary, but rather, it was she who abandoned them, in obedience to her firstborn.

Acts 1: 14; It was the custom of the disciples after the death of Jesus, to meet and worship with the mother and family of Jesus; [His sisters, his father Cleophas/Alpheaus/Joseph the son of Heli, his half brother Simeon, etc].

Then after Peter was miraculously released from prison, Peter ran straight to the house where he knew the faithful would be gathered in prayer for his safety, to the House of Mary the Mother of young John, who had been surnamed "MARK," which, according to Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means, "Hammer, or the Hammerer," and John surnamed "Mark," is associated with young John, who Jesus had surnamed "Son of thunder." [Thor]

Joseph the son of Heli, also called Alphaeus and Cleophas, who the disciples were to later surname Barnabas, was a disciple of Jesus. He was a Macedonian native of Cyprus, where he possessed land (Acts 4:36, 37), which he sold, giving the proceeds to the church in Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas were appointed as missionaries to Asia Minor. It was in this capacity, and taking with them, young John who was surnamed “Mark,” who was the adopted son of Mary the half-sister of Joseph who had been surnamed Barnabas, they visited Cyprus and some of the principal cities of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia (Acts 13:14).

After they had returned to Antioch from the Jerusalem council and after spending some time there (15:35), Paul asked Barnabas to accompany him on another journey (15:36). Barnabas wished to take John surnamed Mark along, but Paul did not, as he had left them on the former journey (15:37-38). The dispute ended by Paul and Barnabas taking separate routes. Paul took Silas as his companion, and journeyed through Syria and Cilicia; while Barnabas took John surnamed Mark to visit Cyprus and the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of John the beloved and Mary the [Half-sister] of Joseph/Barnabas and adopted mother to John the beloved disciple, can still be visited.

ανεψιος [anepsios] appears only the one time in the New Testament: In Young’s Literal Translation its meaning is “Nephew,” Salute you doth Aristarchus, my fellow-captive, and Marcus, the nephew of Barnabas, In the King James Version, it is translated “Sister’s son.” “Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas.” John surnamed Mark was the son, adopted son, or grandson, of Mary the sister to Joseph who was surnamed Barnabas.

You have the brains of an earth worm and are in capable of comprehending anything that you read.

Nowhere do the scriptures say that God made a promise to Noah that he would never again destroy the earth, in fact God said through his prophet Zephaniah 1: 2-3; “I am going to destroy everything on earth, all human beings and animals, birds and fish. I will bring about the downfall of the wicked. I will destroy the whole human race, and no survivors will be left. I, the LORD, have spoken.

Then is verse 18; "On the day when the LORD shows his fury, not even all their silver and gold will save them. The whole earth will be destroyed by the fire of his anger. He will put an end — a sudden end — to everyone who lives on earth."

What God said to Noah in Genesis 9: 11, was, "With these words I make my covenant with you: I promise that never again will all living beings be destroyed by 'A FLOOD'; never again will 'A FLOOD' destroy the earth.

Not that a blind person such as yourself would have noticed. but any intelligent person who has eyes that can see, will have noticed that Genesis 7: 21-23, states; "Every living being 'ON THE EARTH DIED — every bird, every animal, and every person. Everything 'ON EARTH THAT BREATHED DIED'. The LORD destroyed all living beings 'ON THE EARTH' — human beings, animals, and birds.

Everything on earth that breathed died, but no mention of the creatures that lived in the oceans dying, whereas Zephaniah 1: 2-3, states; “I am going to destroy everything on earth, all human beings and animals, birds and 'FISH'.

Revelation 21: 1; Then I saw a new heavens and a new earth. The first heaven and the first earth disappeared, and the seas had vanished. even the oceans will be evaporated by the heavenly fire of the Lord.

But you don't like that sort of thing being said in your bible so you have torn those pages out, what a blind fool you are?

You must be one of they of whom God said to his messenger in Isaiah 6: 10; "Go! Make the minds of these people dull, their ear deaf, and their eyes blind, so that they cannot see of hear or understand. for if they did, they might turn to me and be healed."

1. Jesus had no full brother. He hasd several half brothers and haf sisters.
2. Joseph was not related to Heli. This is Jesus via Joseph's line:


Okay, let's review. (1) Nowhere in this does it mention Heli. (2) David's line branches off into Nathan (not the prophet) and Solomon. (2a) Solomon's line has the cursed line of Jeconiah, of which God has made it so contrary to what the Jews believe, no descendants of Solomob are eligible to be God's Messiah. (2b) Nathan's line has Heli, as her own father. (3) Joseph's line is a direct result of murder/adultery (Solomon is Bathsheba's child). While God forgives out sins, the one chosen to act of behalf of us must be without blemish. This, the line of Jeconiah, and your accusation of father-daughter incest all are blemishes. (4) Joseph is not called the father of Jesus. Let's repeat that. He is called the husband of Mary, the mother of Je,sus. In other words, he married her, but if this were a paternity test we'd all be saying that he was NOT the father. (5) Who was? Hahaha, Mary. Basically Jesus would have been a bastard if not for a very decent man claiming paternity.

You don't understand what he's doing. This is NOT a marriage. Jesus is going to die. Jesus is adopting him into their family as SON, not husband. Jesus knows he will die, so he's stating "Now, you're her son." Joseph may or may not be alive. He would be at least 60, but you've created alot of complicated crap.

All this remarriage of Mary. This is the same sort of Ebionite crap that Revelation founded on. Basically attempts to distort the nature of Jesus. I'm not buying this stuff.

Incapable. One word. Not capable.

In capable means inside capabe.

You should not have any business telling other ppl about their brains.

Ezekiel and Zephaniah are not in my Bible. Neither is Nahum, Obadiah, or Nehemiah. Nor Habakkuk, Haggai, Ecclesiastes, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Judges, Ezra, or Esther. Many of the Letters in NT are also missing.

Extreme, no? No.
Esther, I wanted to add, but it was too Jewish. The awful celebration that is Purim (basically a reliving of the murder of someone long dead, because the Jews cannot let go of grudges) comes from here.
Most of the prophets I rejected fell into one of three categories: (1) Too damned long (some of these I was able to cut), (2) end times crap despite never again flooding the Earth (way to miss the point, it isn't "I'll try some other way to destroy the Earth", it's that God extended grace and a promise. The promise is no good if God uses a classic lawyer clause escape), (3) Overall, I wanted the Bible to read more like a cohesive whole. This meant the prophecies God gave were about his son Jeaus. Those that weren't
Jeremiah would have been #2 but it is clearly about the events leading up to Lamentations. I'm gonna cut its length though.
Ezekiel and Zephaniah are trippy apocalypse stuff. No.
The other prophects just don't have enough real prophecies of Jesus, and some have false prophecies about the Messiah as warrior king and someonwe who would repair the temple. (Btw, this prerequisite is crap. At the time of Jesus, the temple was still standing)
What aboyut Ecclesiastes, Nahum, 2 & 2 Chronicles, Judges, and the Letters. Samuel & Kings makes a case against the king, showing how the Jews were selfish. They also show that the Temple should not have been built. Since Judges and Chronicles are both propaganda in favor of the two, I reject them. Nahum reversed Jonah's saving Ninevah. Ecclesiastes basically was secular, and seemed to glorify hedonism. It was also depressing. The Letters I ditched, either had too many second and third books, had nothing to do with the teaching of grace, or basically propped up Revelation.

So no, I don't care about books that are not part of my canon.

Of course not, because you have quoted the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob who is a descendant of Solomon through the cursed genetic line of Jehoiachin of who God says in Jeremiah 22: 30; “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David’s successor. I, the Lord, have spoken.”

This, rules out the hope of any descendant of Jehoiachin ever sitting on the throne of David.

Jesus is not recorded in the genealogy of that Joseph who married the already pregnant Mary, and who had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to the Jesus, the grandson of Alexander Helios/Heli the father of Joseph ben Heli, a descendant of Nathan the adopted son of King David and half brother to Solomon, both having the same mother, Bathsheba.

Whereas Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios/Heli was a legitimate successor to that throne.

Not only do you not buy this stuff, you have edited out of the bible most of everything said by the prophets, your bible is simply the rambling words of a fool and not the words of the Lord God our saviour.

Make sure you receive your medication before being put to bed tonight.

No, no, no.

Jesus is the son of Mary and Mary (via Ruach ha Kodesh). She met with Kyrie (the Lord, not an angel, not a messenger, not any man named Heli, but the man Himself). The average Bible tells us "an angel of the Lord" but nahhh it was the Lord himself that has done this. There was an adoption taking place here, but it was the second earthly parent, who had resolved to leave her because she was pregnant and couldn't name the Father.

But once again this "angel" came, this time to Joseph, and convinced him to protect her from ruin by claiming to be her father. And behold, this child of Kyrie (the Lord) through Mary and Mary herself, the Lord Jesus was born, a child of God and Man. He is the Lord, son of the Lord, and will always be the Lord.

You cannot accept the incarnation. So you make up a story about the baptism having magical (I'm using this in the pejorative) powers, transforming a full human into the Son of God. But Jesus never calls himself this. No, he (if he really is he) calls himself the Son of Man. Satan deals in false transformation. "Turn these stones into bread." Turn this bread and this wine not into the symbol of Christ but the literal body and blood ( Catholicism, I'm looking at you). Turn this man into a woman, but "she" can't get pregnant. God makes the impossible possible, giving Jesus perfect humanity with only one set of parents. He is Son of Man, not a demigod.

You cannot even accept the adoption of a new son for Mary, only seeing a Levirite marriage. In short, you say you accept Jesus, but you tell me heresies. And yet, God compels that if my sins are forgiven, then I also ought to forgive yours. For it is written:


How then can you say that God will execute final judgement on us when He promised never more to destroy the Earth with water? If He has forgiven humanity, yet He breaks His vow, then he is liable to Himself.

I didn't say that God will execute final judgement on this world. The Lord God our saviour revealed the reality of the great day of Judgement through all his prophets, but because you hate the man Jesus and his God, you decided to ignore the words of the Lord as spoken through his prophets, including the man Jesus, and write your own ridiculous Book which was inspired by your Father, Satan.

Make sure you receive your medication, before you are put to bed tonight.

There is no grand day of judgement. I have looked at source text throughout the Bible. They have similar patterns:
-psychedelic imagery
-revenge fantasy
-set in an era where the Jews were conquered
-contains a high element of psychosis

The Revelation is written in the aftermath of an extremely violent period of Jewish history. I was led to understand that the Temple was destroyed, and that was kinda it. Oh no, Jewish history is basically closed around this period because they basically couldn't function. And in its place, are predictions of a Messiah's coming in power to rebuild the Temple, destroy the secular kingdoms of the world. In Christianity, this also exists, because the writer is basically a Messianic Jew. Rather than the Coming of the Messiah, we have the Second Coming of the Messiah. Same difference, a rejection of the way Jesus came to save, and a rejection of the Resurrection as a second coming.
But you see, the gate that Jesus went through on a donkey was basically sealed centuries after his coming. The Golden Gate or Gate of Mercy. It was sealed by the Muslims, to prevent the prophecy of the Messiah coming, which is actually according to prophecy as well. And then they built a graveyard inside, because any true priest wouldn't dare go in. Sorry buddy, but the Messiah came and went, wasn't what the Jews wanted, and isn't interested in entering there again. What would be the point? What Jews need now is a Jewish liberator. Like Moses. Not a Jewish Messiah. Because any Jewish Messiah would have to violate cleanliness laws, and Christians have their Messiah already, and are on the lookout for false Christs. Hosea 6:6 sets us straight.

The Jews have a chosen people complex. Which is fine, as it leads to a number of positive work ethic traits. However, there are some very very bad character traits. One of them in an inability to cope properly with setbacks. Another is to admit that God also chooses others. And the third is to face reality about their religion. God came, not as Barabbas to give a violent action against Rome, but to show true freedom from oppression. The Jews tried to fight Rome, trusting that God had their back. This is basically a big dog complex for a tiny terrier, picking on a pit bull. They lost. Meanwhile, Jesus taught that his kingdom wasn't of this world, and focused on living within society. He proved to be the real Messiah, even to the Jews standards. He rebuilt the Temple...

(The Temple is inside us, not a building that can be destroyed, even if we are destroyed)
and destroyed their enemies. Rome fell, as a result of corruption within. The strain of dealing with these converts weakened the state of Rome. After it fell, it became a divided kingdom ruled by the very people it ruled, scattered groups of Christians who eventually became the Western world.

Unfortunately, apocalyptic thinking is the bane of peace in the civilized world. People who think the world will end don't follow Romans and its call to live as members of society (provided society upholds the social contract), they behave as if there is a conflict between the physical world and the spiritual world. A Christian who is unweighed by such things understands that the Chinese Taoist model (which contains no apocalypse) is a better guide to seeing the world. The world is not cyclic, not like the Hindus believe, but there were events and technologies in the past which have come around again. But it was predicted in Daniel that after the statue with feet of iron and clay fell, God would establish his Eternal Kingdom. The kingdoms of the world will try again and again, but the more they oppress, the more they fall under their own weight. We should not be afraid of Russia invading Ukraine. We should not be afraid of tyranny in our own country. Nazi regime lasted only a few years, and most communist dictatorships last maybe 50 years. If socialism takes over the world, it will seal its own doom as people rightly understand the horrible system it is. This is not the same as end times. This is called the Mandate of Heaven, and it has borne out agaib and again, but particularly after Jesus's coming. It is about to bite China in the ass. You see, a dictatorship cannot last if it does not have the will of the people. And the dictatorship has excesses based on its leader using other people's money, then trying to retake it again and again. This creates a debt loop that eventually manifests itself into either a kingdom empty of subjects or a bunch of angry people with torches and pitchforks. If people have no fear of death (as they would, believing that Jesus came for their sins, rather than a second coming), the harder they are pushed, the less they care.

Sorry kiddo, there is the great day of judgement, and we know that you have looked at source text throughout the word of God and rejected his words, and have torn out the pages of all his prophets who speak of that day, including the words spoken by our Lord God and saviour through the mouth of his prophet, the man Jesus, who said in Matthew 25: 31; concerning the Final Judgement: “When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will put the righteous people on his right and the others on his left. Then the King will say to the people on his right, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.’

“The righteous will then answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these members of my family, you did it for me!’

“Then he 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 angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.’

But you hate the chosen one of God, and have created a female love doll that you have named Jesus, a love doll who would sit and watch the nations surrounding Israel drive his chosen people into the sea.

Rather than HE who is coming to save his people and establish his throne in Jerusalem from where he shall judge the whole world with justice for the great Sabbath Day of one thousand years, immediately after which heavenly fire will come down and incinerate everything remaining on this earth, and the Lord who revealed himself through Jesus will then take his throne and divide all the disembodied spirits of man, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

Revelation 21: 5-8; Then the one who sits on the throne said, “And now I make all things new!” He also said to me, “Write this, because these words are true and can be trusted.” And he said, “It is done! I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end. To anyone who is thirsty I will give the right to drink from the spring of the water of life without paying for it.

Those who win the victory will receive this from me: I will be their God, and they will be my children. But cowards, traitors, perverts, murderers, the immoral, those who practise magic, those who worship idols, and all liars — the place for them is the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

Exactly what the prophet Jesus foretold in Matthew 25.

Now you, who hate my God and hate Jesus my chosen King and High Priest, run along and play with your string of paper cutout dollies, but make sure you return those scissors before you receive your medication and are taken off to bed.

Yeah yeah.

I will accept that Jesus occasionally punishes the wicked. But much of this happens during our own life, and we have a pretty clear guide to this:


Now look at this image:


Would you agree that this is a disproportionate amount of punishment? God will punish us equal to our sin. And the state of being alive is far greater of a sin than anything we humans can dream up. That is to say, by living on Earth, we have eaten from knowledge of good and evil, and whatever we do potentially displeases God. If this is true, then without grace all of us are damned. But let us consider the story. Suppose the rich man's sentence is not for the duration of the amount of time that the rich man mistreated Lazarus (a lifespan) but for eternity. After the length of time equal to the amount he mistreated Lazarus, this man is basically being oppressed by Lazarus. Forever.

So what are we to make of this?

First, we are to understand that this is a parable condemning the Jewish "religious" people, and not to be taken as an actual account of the Afterlife. Second, Heaven and Hell in this parable are same place. If this is so, then the entire idea is a trick (something like the rich man is punished by his guilt or some sort of delusion state, or something). This is not to say the Afterlife doesn't exist, but this is completely out of line with the hope Jesus gives to sinners. Even Revelation (which I reject) with its lake of fire, says that it it will eventually empty Hades itself into the lake of fire, after emptying out its citizens.

But if the doctrine of the lake of fire was real (it cannot be), and the work-based gospel of Revelation was real (it cannot be), then none of us are worthy enough to be forgiven. Not you, not me, not Leadfoot, not Frank, not anyone we know. All of us, without exception would be judged by the law. The law that Jesus had to die on the cross to save us from the results of.