The False Prophet of Revelation

a reply to: Isurrender73

Proverbs 31
7 Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish! 8 Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

The Holy Spirit is water, not wine. Wine makes you forget, not remember.

Why does the adulteress make her followers intoxicated in Revelation? Because she makes them drink fermented drinks, wine. The adulteress is the church, Jesus is its beast.

Luke 1
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

So is this a "do as I say and not as I do" kind of thing here?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Isurrender73

Fair enough...

Does that also mean you believe Jesus killed a small child when he was a boy as well?

That's in the same book, if you didn't know that

No, I believe that most of the apocryphal books contain truth and fiction.

I'm not saying anything for certain but I've had this thought about some of the Gnostic writing.

The Gnostics may have added false statements as a type of Gnostic signature. They knew that the church would not understand the Spiritual message and discard them as heresy. But the Gnostics themselves would be able to identify the message.

I'm not very good at quoting anything from them, but the ideas are in my mind. I've read through most of the apocryphal books at least once. I have a good size digital collection and a few hard cover books as well.

a reply to: Isurrender73

So you're ok with some gnostic writing as well... interesting

yet you must also know then that the gnostic writers did not believe in the OT as the word of God...

OF course there were various schools of thought in gnostic writing, but generally the OT is not of God according to their ideas...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I guess it could be considered hypocrisy.

But Jesus turned 150 gallons of water into wine, and drank wine at the last supper. He even had this to say in acknowledging that he drank wine and John did not.

Luke 1
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

To drink wine or not to drink wine I don't think was the point of John abstaining from wine and Jesus drinking wine.

Jesus uses this to point out the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders.

The people actually wondered if John was the Christ because he lived such a pure life, but the leaders rejected and did not get baptized even saying he had a demon.

Jesus lead a more normal life, drinking and feasting and he was called a gluten and drunkard.

The Jews had become so convinced that the Christ was a warrior king they rejected the message of peace from both John, who lived a pure life, and Jesus who lived a normal life but performed miracles.

It was the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders that was pointed out buy this apparent contradiction.

There was no message of peace that they were willing to accept, nothing less than the Zionist Ideology of Jewish world denomination would be accepted by the leaders.

And you can see the same Zionism is still alive today within certain Jewish sects. 2000 years and they still are waiting for world domination.

a reply to: Akragon

It's interesting that he believes God's word could be corrupted with the Gnostic works, works that were almost completely destroyed by those in power, but also believes the bible is incorruptible even though those in power have preserved it.

Either God's words cannot be corrupted with the bible or they can with Gnostic works. It can't be both can it?

a reply to: Isurrender73

So John lived a more pure life than Jesus? Then why is he NOT considered the Messiah? I thought living a sinless life was as pure as it got?

Matthew 11
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Wasn't Jesus born from a woman? Is he calling John the Baptist greater than himself?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Isurrender73

So you're ok with some gnostic writing as well... interesting

yet you must also know then that the gnostic writers did not believe in the OT as the word of God...

OF course there were various schools of thought in gnostic writing, but generally the OT is not of God according to their ideas...

Yes I have read that. I have a different opinion. It is hard for most to justify the OT but I have justified it in my mind.

This is the simplest way I justify it. I see one of 2 possibilities.

Moses performed the miracles in Egypt and parted the red sea, proving he had authority from God to tell Isreal to destroy the perverted, child sacrificing demon worshiping cullture.

Or he did not, making the story of Egypt a metaphor and the story of how Isreal was to treat demon worshippers also a metaphor.

It's either all true accompanied by signs from God, or all metaphors.

And the OT atrocities outside of a few judgments against those who had just witnessed the miracles and capturing Isreal, are not directed by YHWH, they were just heinous acts done by the Jews.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Either God's words cannot be corrupted with the bible or they can with Gnostic works. It can't be both can it?

Well he also believes there are no contradictions or errors in "the book"

He is a strange one without a doubt...

a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes I have read that. I have a different opinion. It is hard for most to justify the OT but I have justified it in my mind.

Well my friend, one can not have a different opinion of gnostic writing... its all there for anyone to read, and the OT was basically an evil demi-god according to them

This is the simplest way I justify it. I see one of 2 possibilities.

Moses performed the miracles in Egypt and parted the red sea, proving he had authority from God to tell Isreal to destroy the perverted, child sacrificing demon worshiping cullture.

Or he did not, making the story of Egypt a metaphor and the story of how Isreal was to treat demon worshippers also a metaphor

Lets not forget commanding his soldiers to kill those that have already surrendered because this so called "god" told him to do it...

Personally I would choose to see these stories as allegorical metaphor rather then "the truth"... or even Gods word, but that's me

It's either all true accompanied by signs from God, or all metaphors.

Sounds very fundy...

And the OT atrocities outside of a few judgments against those who had just witnessed the miracles and capturing Isreal, are not directed by YHWH, they were just heinous acts done by the Jews.

And you don't agree that said atrocities in the OT were by Gods hand either?

lol... strange Christian

Though I suppose there are as many flavors as their are grains of sand on a beach

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Akragon

It's interesting that he believes God's word could be corrupted with the Gnostic works, works that were almost completely destroyed by those in power, but also believes the bible is incorruptible even though those in power have preserved it.

Either God's words cannot be corrupted with the bible or they can with Gnostic works. It can't be both can it?

The gnostics works were not canonized in the bible. The Gnostics did not claim to be prophets. I might write something that could enlighten someone but I'm not telling anyone I'm writing scriptures.

Only those who claim to be prophets, who were followed as prophets, gave scriptures directly from God. But all one has to do is pick up a good book or watch a good movie and you can find the work of the enlightened. The enlightened can embellish because they are not leaving scriptures.

There is a difference. I don't think the apocryphal books belong as scriptures, but some of them are embellished tales that contain truths from the enlightened.

If the Gnostics work contradicts the bible I reject it, but I have found truth that actually provides clarity to other scriptures.

I really don't like the Talmud and the Hadith, but parts of them were written by enlightened men who were not prophets. The problem comes when people start following non-canonized works as equal to the scriptures.

Should the movie Avatar be scripture? Obviously not, but it was written by the enlightened and has the ability to enlighten others.

Enlightened stories are good but they are not scriptures.

a reply to: Akragon

If the police walked into a hidden park and there were 10 people who just finished sacrificing other people on an alter, but they surrender to the police, would they still get the death penalty? Not much has changed.

The hard part for people is the killing of children. The world was a bit different 3500 years ago. There were no prisons, no child psychologist.

It could be said that the children were innocent in the site of God.

Would it be better to grow up an abused slave or to return to the Father in heaven were the innocent children were sure to end up?

Obviously today the children would end up in child psychology and hopefully good foster care. But this was not an option 3500 years ago.,

I am an apologist of all scriptures, only a little more logical thinking then most zealots.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The gnostics works were not canonized in the bible. The Gnostics did not claim to be prophets. I might right something that could enlighten someone but I'm not telling anyone I'm writing scriptures.

On the contrary... Many of the gnostic books and fragments claim to be written by direct followers of Jesus

Not just prophets, but the actual words written down by the people that followed the man... which is a little better then a mere prophet... Thomas was claimed to be the actual sayings of Christ, and some scholars date the text to even before Mark... which is unlikely but still possible.

What was canonized in the bible was the writing that the church wanted to push and nothing more... they held the keys to heaven in that day, and anything that when against what they wanted to teach was deemed heretical, and destroyed or disposed of...

This idea was also applied to the OT as well, where many of the original books such as Enoch were taken out of the final product because they didn't support the church as the only means to God

a reply to: Isurrender73

Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, and James were not prophets, yet their books are still part of scripture.

So your argument is that books that are not canonized (chosen by powerful people) cannot be considered the word of God? Why does canonization give them authority? Men chose what went into the bible, not God. Powerful men with lots of influence at that.

You remind me of another poster that used to post around here.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Akragon

If the police walked into a hidden park and there were 10 men just finished sacrificing other humans on an alter, but they surrender to the police, would they still get the death penalty? Not much has changed.

The hard part for people is the killing of children. The world was a bit different 3500 years ago. There were no prisons, no child psychologist.

It could be said that the children were innocent in the site of God.

Would it be better to grow up an abused slave or to return to the Father in heaven were the innocent children were sure to end up?

I am an apologist of all scriptures, only a little more logical thinking then most zealots.

IF Moses was a true man of God... would he not let God make that decision? Perhaps let the child live his life and find out what's actually in his heart?

Killing a child is wrong I don't care who or what voice said person is hearing

And Jesus said the same thing... wonder why he would contradict his own Father?

Perhaps because the OT was not HIS Father at all... Just the writing he was raised on which he used to get his points across to his followers, who were raised in the same religion

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't think Jesus was lying.

John sacrificed his life based solely on faith. According to scriptures he didn't even know his cousin was the Christ, until he baptised him. Yet he lived a life of poverty eating only locusts and honey.

Jesus knew from birth who he was and and what his fate was.

Jesus was declaring that John was greater in faith, even though Christ was greater in wisdom. They both sacrificed their lives for the Father as martyrs.

a reply to: Isurrender73

John sacrificed his life based solely on faith. He didn't even know hos cousin was the Christ, until je baptised him

Maybe you should read that passage again?

originally posted by: Farlander
Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

John is QUOTING what GOD said. He isn't claiming to BE God or the Alpha and Omega.

If I write:

"I am an old man," wrote Twain, "and have known a great many troubles."

it doesn't mean I'm claiming to BE Mark Twain. It means I'm quoting him.

Thank you for the making the 1st statement of common reason in this thread.I'm sure the refutation will be equally unreasonable.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Isurrender73

Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, and James were not prophets, yet their books are still part of scripture.

So your argument is that books that are not canonized (chosen by powerful people) cannot be considered the word of God? Why does canonization give them authority? Men chose what went into the bible, not God. Powerful men with lots of influence at that.

You remind me of another poster that used to post around here.

No I believe that the Holy Spirit directed the cannon. The God I believe in is much more powerful then the God most others believe in. The Apostle who wrote the accounts were the ones choosen to write the account of the prophet through the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is both the son of God and a prophet.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I know you are enlightened so I am going to ask you a serious question.

Is it possible that the Light inside you could one day inspire you to write something that could change the world?

You may not even realize that you were writing scriptures, but after your death others could be inspired by the same Spirit to cannonize your writing as scriptures.

It is not as impossible or as complicated as it sounds. And to think that God would place the scriptures in the hands of zealots to protect them, even if some of what you meant got confused, is not impossible either.

a reply to: Akragon

He was claiming the same YWHW that gave him power to perform miracles by the staff was the same one who directed him.

So like I said, it's back to it's all true or all metaphors. If it's metaphor then it's extreme I would agree.

It sounds tragic to be killed, but I'm not afraid neither are my children. They see death the same as I do, better than life.

I don't hold on to life as something precious. I live it as a gift and enjoy what I can, but to die and return to the father is a much better gift then to live in this world of greed and death.