The two «Theria» of Revelation 13

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So because you allege, there are no historical accounts to support anything you say, its all Paul's fault? How is that objective?

There are no contemporary historical accounts of anything Christian. They destroyed everything, even the Greek oracles, since they spoke on behalf of Christendom.

a reply to: Sheraldo

Certainly!

a reply to: Seede

You are aware that early Christianity was in conflict with both Rome and Jerusalem? Can you site any corpus of any Christian book (other than those of Saul Paulus) from the 1st century that has survived? Thought so. There is none. And the early Christians wrote a lot and kept Tannakhs and Torahs, but Rome and Jerusalem burnt these.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So then your theory has no foundation. John was not referring to Paul in Revelation. John was using OT prophecy to build a map for the future of Christianity, leading up to the interrupted 70th Week. The Whore and the seven-headed beast was the mingling of Christianity and politics to establish a succession of theocratic emperors who would oppress the world. Paul had nothing to do with it. He was not rejected by the other apostles.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So then your theory has no foundation. John was not referring to Paul in Revelation. John was using OT prophecy to build a map for the future of Christianity, leading up to the interrupted 70th Week. The Whore and the seven-headed beast was the mingling of Christianity and politics to establish a succession of theocratic emperors who would oppress the world. Paul had nothing to do with it. He was not rejected by the other apostles.

First off...Jesus didn't come to start "Christianity". THAT, dude, is a "religion". As a matter of fact, exactly "where" do you get the term "Christian"?? Oh, I know...Paul started it in Antioch, right? Isn't that where the believers in PAUL were first called "Christians"?
And how do you know whether or not John was referring to Paul or not? Paul was a Roman CITIZEN. Which means, he had all the support of Roman authorities...which he dang well used when he was in the "hot seat" of being arrested and abused.
Oh, my goodness...Paul decided to cover his own ass, rather than "dying for Christ". Ha. Not surprising.
I bet (on my life, actually), he lived a very "cushy" life after his arrest.
Bottom line...Paul was a lying sack of sh##. And YOU can't see it because all you base your faith on is Saul of Tarsus.

By the way,....Jesus makes Paul look like an idiot. Oh! But! We don't need to listen to Jesus, cause Paul showed us what Jesus REALLY meant!
Yea, right..

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

If you could read the heptameter (Classical Greek style syllable metering) in Revelation, you maybe wouldn't be making such ignorant statements. If only you could see how Paul's heptameter in Ephesians dovetails with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelation, you would realize that Paul was just as much an Apostle as John was.

If you're really interested in learning the truth about Paul and his relation to the Bible, you can start here.



The truth is not as easy as cranking out hearsay. It requires searching.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So what you are saying is that since the books of Saul are written (or translated) in the same language as the other NT books, he is an apostle? Use you heheheptameterwhatever on any Koine Greek text and you will get the same result. It's not magic of sign of God playing along, it's language and how they are constructed. So you finally went and made your syllable machine?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Actually, classical Greek literature is often metered in hexameter. Heptameter is only found in OT and NT as far as I know. Its not the structure of the language, its the structure of the poetry, and its interpretive of the text. Both John and Paul used it to map out prophetic events and predict the rise of apostate church fathers and theocrats.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: Seede You are aware that early Christianity was in conflict with both Rome and Jerusalem? Can you site any corpus of any Christian book (other than those of Saul Paulus) from the 1st century that has survived? Thought so. There is none. And the early Christians wrote a lot and kept Tannakhs and Torahs, but Rome and Jerusalem burnt these.

Certainly I am aware of the Nazarene movement being persecuted by both Rome and the house of Caiaphas.

Why do we have to have a Christian source in historicity? Most all first century MSS are derived from Roman historians such as Tacitus [56-120 c.e.], Suetonius [69-122 c.e.], or perhaps Dio Cassius [155-235 c.e.] who used some historicity from earlier MSS. We then have the very reliable Clement of Rome who was the disciple of the Apostle John and was appointed bishop of the Christian movement by the Apostle Peter. This along with numerous MSS [outside literature] would fill volumes of literature if gathered to do so.

One of my favorite historians [not of the first century] but most certainly one of the greatest in collecting early church history MSS is Rabanus Maurus. He was not a contemporary historian of the synagogue of James but most certainly was a valuable source of first century MSS.

You must also consider the early church fathers for a wealth of information. As you can see it is not necessarily a corpus of literature but a compilation of hundreds of sources that are then book formed and shelved as history. That is how a historian gathers his/her information. It is not best to have one source to verify a subject but it is best to have multiple sources agree and establish a tradition.

We could move into the Glastonbury literature and become astonished to learn that the very first century Christian Church moved into Europe even as the first synagogue of James was being established. On line account is Lionel Smithett Lewis who in turn cites numerous early first century sources. I see your point but do not agree that the accounts must be contemporary.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul Teaches In Original Sin But Jesus Contradicts

The concept of original sin cannot be blamed on Paul.....

Romans 5:12-21
Verse 12 is the primary proof-text that Augustine used to make his case for original sin. The end of verse 12 in Greek says ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Jerome mistranslated this phrase into Latin as “in whom all sinned,” which he assumed to modify Adam. This is the reason that Augustine made the claim that all humanity sinned “in Adam,” which is the basis for centuries of claiming that all humanity should be blamed for Adam’s sin which they committed either by existing primordially in his semen or, as later theologians contended, because Adam was the “federal head” of humanity. All of this is based on a translation error. Not only is it absurd that Jerome made ἐφ’ into “in,” but he connected the ᾧ pronoun in the ἐφ’ ᾧ clause back to Adam instead of “death,” which is what makes the most sense syntactically. If the ἐφ’ ᾧ is connected to death instead, then “death spread to all by which all have sinned,” which would make death the spiritual reality that is the source of sin instead of the punishment for sin (which is how the Eastern Orthodox interpret this passage).

Source

"death spread to all by which all have sinned,” Or more correctly rebirth and then death, as in never ending reincarnation.

So how do you try to convince todays christians that Jesus did not die for their sins (as if GOD would accept human sacrifice anyway given thou shall not kill!). That Christians don't have a special free ticket to heaven, but must earn it, like everyone else, by loving GOD and each other, more so than ourselves.

a reply to: glend

Text "death spread to all by which all have sinned,” Or more correctly rebirth and then death, as in never ending reincarnation. So how do you try to convince todays christians that Jesus did not die for their sins (as if GOD would accept human sacrifice anyway given thou shall not kill!). That Christians don't have a special free ticket to heaven, but must earn it, like everyone else, by loving GOD and each other, more so than ourselves.

The first century Nazarene's believed that the purpose of the Christ would be to establish a kingdom of heaven (New Jerusalem) of which the author of Isaiah declared. Forgiveness of sins of the living was not the same as a judgment after death and becoming justified. There has always been forgiveness of the repenting soul since the creation but justification can only be realized after death and a judgment.

The Roman church polluted the doctrine of Jesus by declaring that man can pardon other peoples offenses against God. No one has been given that authority according to the doctrine of the Christ Jesus. The entire purpose of the advent of Jesus was to release the justified spirits who were imprisoned in Sheol and establish the kingdom of heaven to all future peoples. This morphed into false doctrines of the belief that Jesus came to forgive us and that God is nothing but love. That has destroyed the true purpose of Jesus' mission. Most Christians have no idea of what the purpose of the Christ Jesus is.

a reply to: Seede

Thank you Seede for explaining your understanding of Christianity. Very good to hear. It would be a great sadness if the majority of Christians waste their life on beliefs that might be incorrect.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: glend
.......
Most Christians have no idea of what the purpose of the Christ Jesus is.

Not most Christians, all Christians have no idea what the purpose of Yahoshua(Yahweh is deliverance) is.

G-zues is not a real name even.. Unqualified is the first quality assumed of those who use it.


How can you dig into the bible and still use the word g- zues? Do you also want to repeatedly kill christ through eucharistic? Sicko Italian scumbuckets, pedophile supporters and enablers!

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: glend

The entire purpose of the advent of Jesus was to release the justified spirits who were imprisoned in Sheol

To say that is the "entire" purpose is hyperbole of the highest order of falsity and religious elitist disillusionment.Any reasonable person would know the belief in a Sheol inside the Earth is categorically false and unreasonable and can never be proven.The fact is there is no place "in" the Earth that "spirits" live in.That is a doctrine of religion that has zero basis for truth in reality and those that believe it are not credible.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul was the twelfth apostle, "born out of season". Judas betrayed Christ, thus relieving himself of the/any obligation. You sound like the serpent in Eden asking Eve, .. "Thou surely won't die"? Your supposed "contridictions" of Paul.. (For whatever reason) is that he was sent to the gentiles not the Jew/Hebrews. If you study your bible more, you'd learn that Peter ("a man of simple/rude speech") was sent to the "EDUCATED". Paul, was sent to the "uneducated" (unknowing). Basically the idiots that wouldn't believe.

a reply to: murphy22

Calling Saulus an apostle is like calling Charles Manson one. Saulus raptured (same word used in rape and repel) followers of Jesus and had them executed in Rome on behalf of the Sanhedrin, the Elders, the Herodians and of course the Pharicees and the Romans themselves. He was a bounty hunter and had more Christians tortured and killed than any other. Nero killed the ones Saulus caught.