Vatican: Bible Confirms Jesus Was Not Crucified

a reply to: Seede

There is some confusion on this very same subject that you have mentioned. God did rest on the seventh day of creation but is the seventh day of creation the same as the seventh day of that which has been created?

This can't be that confusing because there is a very destinct difference in what order God and Lord God do Things, and how they do it. And what they actually created/made.


First of all. In Genesis Chapter 1. It is stated that God created the Heaven and the Earth. One Heaven and One Earth.
But in Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4. Lord God takes credit for that he made the Earth and the heavens? There is something fishy right there.

- God created the Heaven and the Earth.... God create Things.

- Lord God made Earth and the Heavens....? Science make Things.


Lord God is not God. Lord God is a Scientific mastermind who make Things from what God have already created.


- Lord God formed Man (Adam) of the dust on the ground..... And Eve from Adams rib: That is pritty Scientific is it not?

- God created man as male and female in their image. God did not form man of the dust on the ground. God created.

.......................................

- God said: Let the Earth and the waters bring forth all life, the grass, the seeds and so on. That is the evolution of what God had created.

- Lord God had to plant he's own garden. Form he's own beasts of the dust on the ground. Earth did not form Lord Gods beats. Nor did Earth bring forth Lord Gods Garden....... Lord God had to do it him self.

a reply to: spy66

First of all. In Genesis Chapter 1. It is stated that God created the Heaven and the Earth. One Heaven and One Earth. But in Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4. Lord God takes credit for that he made the Earth and the heavens? There is something fishy right there.Text

You are correct in that there are some confusing things told in the bible if you read it as a story book. But it is not a story book and is more of a history book. Most people that are not taught by educated sources will understand that Moses wrote the Torah and he got it all wrong. Moses did not pen all of the Torah. There are many sources for much of Torah that were condensed from the various Hebrew tribes as well as that material which Moses contributed to Torah.

The books of Torah have many different authors as well as some prophetic books such as Isaiah has the same. Even though the scroll of Isaiah is named Isaiah, there are believed to be several authors of the material of Isaiah. Torah is accredited to Moses because Moses compiled the various sources which comprise the five books of Moses.

A history book is a good example. The historian may have many different accounts of the same happening in his/her work and all of the collected accounts may have various enlightening information on the very same happening. The historian completes his/her collecting the various accounts and calls the book by his/her name, but that does not mean that the author wrote the accounts by his/her personal experience. You then can understand that Torah is not continuous story line but are collected traditional accounts from various sources.

Now lets examine the very first account of creation. -- Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That is a true statement. God created the earth (world) and the universe which is the 2nd heaven. This world is placed in this heaven which is the universe. Nothing else is in the universe (heaven) at this time. So there is one earth and one heaven. The entire heaven is empty except for this world.

Now lets examine the second account of the creation of the world and universe (heaven). -- Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

When God divided the waters from the waters, is when He created another heaven called the firmament. The Firmament is the heaven created between the waters and is now called the first heaven of this world. This is where the clouds and birds are realized and the space we call air. The second heaven is the heaven which we call outer space and is where we now find the moon and sun and the bodies of the universe.

So when you read the first chapter of Genesis you are reading of one world and one heaven which is the universe. At this point there is no air and the world is nothing but a giant mud ball in a canopy of water with a heaven that is not breathable air and pitch black. The earth has the universe all to itself at this point.

Then God said let there be light and He then showed His primeval light to brighten the universe (heaven). It is then that He divided the ball of earth and water and put a space between the waters which we understand as our very first heaven. We then had a world of earth with the waters gathered into one big body on the earth and earth as one big body of dirt. The world at this time was still engulfed in a canopy of water and outside that canopy of water was the second heaven called the universe.

So now in the second chapter of Genesis we have two heavens whereas in the first chapter we had one heaven. This canopy of water the world was engulfed in remained as the greenhouse effect for about 1600 years. Then the canopy of water fell upon the earth along with the great flood of Noah which then exposed the universe to the creation of the world. This is what we see today. We see our first heaven as the air we breath with the birds and clouds and we can also see the heavenly bodies in the second heaven which we call the universe.

Lord God is not God. Lord God is a Scientific mastermind who make Things from what God have already created.

You are close. "The Most High El" who is the total Spiritual source of all existence is that mastermind but is not the Creator of this terrestrial universe. The Begotten Son of God is the physicality of the "Most High EL" and is called the Word of God. The Word of God is our Creator who in turn is the begotten entity of "The Most High EL." Actually what you said is correct in Christian theology.

Text- God created man as male and female in their image. God did not form man of the dust on the ground. God created.

According to Christianity, the Creator formed man from the material of which He previously created. That is to say that man was formed first and wo man was taken from that material of man. The substance of both man and woman is a terrestrial substance with a celestial life force (spirit). No one can understand more than that.

- Lord God had to plant he's own garden. Form he's own beasts of the dust on the ground. Earth did not form Lord Gods beats. Nor did Earth bring forth Lord Gods Garden....... Lord God had to do it him self.

I agree -- Gan Eden was not a terrestrial habitation. Gan Eden was planted by the Creator and was also removed to the celestial realm after sin was introduced. It is now located in the celestial third heaven in the celestial city of New Jerusalem. The NT calls it Paradise.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome

The rabbinic era or era of the Talmud was more opinions of the rabbis than the prophets.

Wasn't Jesus' course on earth to expose the false teachings of the rabbis?

Depends upon which bible you are talking about. When Paul wrote 2nd Timothy there was no New Testament or Christian bible. There was only the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament). So if there was no New Testament, Paul could not have meant New Testament scriptures. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes so it could not have referenced Jesus doctrine because the New Testament did not exist then.

There is only one bible. Your above comments indicate once again the scriptures were not inspired by God. Many of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures unknowingly referenced the Greek Scriptures before they were written. Why? Because God inspired them to write things that would not be understood until the fulfillment!

The third heaven is mentioned in 2nd Corinthians 12:2.

Paul no doubt was referring to himself in that passage. It is obvious by the context of the verse that it was a vision, and in that context the "third heaven" was not (1) the atmosphere or (2) outer space, but (3) heaven as in the spiritual realm. This has nothing to do with levels of heaven like many false religious teachings.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: spy66


It is now located in the celestial third heaven in the celestial city of New Jerusalem.

It is established that the third heaven simply means the spirit realm, since the atmosphere and space are heavens 1 & 2 respectively. This can be shown by the bible's description that the atmosphere and space are also called "the heavens". Shifting gears to the deeper things of the bible, here is a question for the learned to answer: The bible mentions New Jerusalem @ (Revelation 21:2) , Heavenly Jerusalem @ (Hebrews 12:22), and Jerusalem Above @ (Galatians 4:26). What are these, and how do they differ?

a reply to: TheChrome

The bible mentions New Jerusalem @ (Revelation 21:2) , Heavenly Jerusalem @ (Hebrews 12:22), and Jerusalem Above @ (Galatians 4:26). What are these, and how do they differ?

My take on this is that the New Jerusalem is actually Lord Gods garden of Eden. Because the tree of life is there. As described in Revelation Chapter 22 verse 2. The only Place we know where the tree of life is located is in the Garden that Lord God planted eastwards in Eden. I dont know about any scripture that mention that there are two trees of life at more then one location?

There are more Clues that hint towards that this is not actually "thee" Gods heaven. A few verses Down in Chapter 22 there is written something very interesting.

Revelation Chapter 22, verse 4.

4
And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

This reminds me about something we are actually been warned about earlier in Revelations.

Revelation Chapter 13 verse 16.

16
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

.......................................................................................

Who would the lamb be in this New Jerusalem?

It would probably be the beast who is described in Genesis Chapter 3 verse 1. The one that deceived Eve.

3. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

The Serpent was not cast out of the Garden of Eden. Only Adam was. That means this beast that seam to be a very clever beast as well, will be located in this New Jerusalem.


The scary part is what this verse hints to in it's last sentens.

Chapter 22 verse 3

3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Every one will be forced to serve him who is brought to this Place.


If you read the verse like this: It is going to sound very scary.

- And there shall be no more curse.

- but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it.

- And his servants shall serve him.

Who are these servents going to serve? To me it sounds like the Beast.

a reply to: TheChrome


If Lord God could cast Adam out of the Garden. Lord God could also send the serpent Down to Earth. Even bring Eden back to Earth.


We think we know who the antichirst will be, but we will never know until we actually take the mark, or the number, or he's name. Only then will he reveal him self to them. as stated in Revelation Chapter 22 verse 4.


We dont know the actual name of the beast (the serpent) because Adam did not mention it.
Adam named all the beast that Lord God brought before him. All but one... the serpent. The reaon why Adam didnt name the serpent is because he knew it was Lord God. The Clue is that the serpent was never brought before Adam to name. Becasue Lord God the serpent was always there.

The other Clue is that Lord God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But Lord God deceived Eve to eat from it. And Eve told Adam it was okay to eat. It all makes Perfect sense. And it explaines why Adam was cast out and not Eve. Eve was allowed by Lord God to eat from the tree,... but not Adam.

It explains how to view revelation Chapter 22 verse 3.

This New Jerusalem is going to be a messed up Place to be in.

a reply to: TheChrome

There is only one bible. Your above comments indicate once again the scriptures were not inspired by God. Many of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures unknowingly referenced the Greek Scriptures before they were written. Why? Because God inspired them to write things that would not be understood until the fulfillment!Text

Actually you are right. There are some people who who believe the bible material is all inspired work by God and then there are some people who do not believe that all but only some of the bible is inspired by God. That is one reason that we have so many translations of bibles. The entire problem is to pick the right people.

A good example is right here on ATS. There are many that hate Paul and wish he would go away and then there are some who see Paul as an inspired author of scripture. So yes in that respect you are right in my opinion.

Paul no doubt was referring to himself in that passage. It is obvious by the context of the verse that it was a vision, and in that context the "third heaven" was not (1) the atmosphere or (2) outer space, but (3) heaven as in the spiritual realm. This has nothing to do with levels of heaven like many false religious teachings.

Yes, the third heaven is spiritual or celestial realm and it is supposedly located outside of this universe. What it is no one can actually prove. I agree that Paul did not really know whether he was visionary or actually seeing what he described. But then Luke also tells of a paradise in Luke 23:43 and John tells of paradise in Revelation 2:7. So we have three instances of three different people telling of their view of paradise.

a reply to: TheChrome

It is established that the third heaven simply means the spirit realm, since the atmosphere and space are heavens 1 & 2 respectively. This can be shown by the bible's description that the atmosphere and space are also called "the heavens". Shifting gears to the deeper things of the bible, here is a question for the learned to answer: The bible mentions New Jerusalem @ (Revelation 21:2) , Heavenly Jerusalem @ (Hebrews 12:22), and Jerusalem Above @ (Galatians 4:26). What are these, and how do they differ?

It starts with Isaiah 65:17-25 of which all refer to the kingdom of heaven.

This universe will one day disappear in total destruction. God will create a New heaven and a new earth and on this new earth He will restore the children and mentally challenged people who were not accountable in this life. They will live to an estimated 100 years and then receive their judgment. If justified after the 100 years they will then be allowed to live forever in the city of New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem is actually the celestial city of which Jesus taught was the kingdom of heaven.

Revelation 22:14,15 tells us that the restored unaccountable people who lived their 100 years and were judged as justified, will then be allowed into the kingdom of heaven which is New Jerusalem. Here they will join the rest of the family of God to eat and drink the fruit and water of life forever.

The Nazarene faith believes that the purpose of the mission of Jesus was to establish His kingdom of heaven [New Jerusalem] and to free the justified spirits which were in Sheol and thereafter allow all of the justified spirits to live forever in the city New Jerusalem. This is not taught in most Christian circles.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome


It is established that the third heaven simply means the spirit realm, since the atmosphere and space are heavens 1 & 2 respectively. This can be shown by the bible's description that the atmosphere and space are also called "the heavens". Shifting gears to the deeper things of the bible, here is a question for the learned to answer: The bible mentions New Jerusalem @ (Revelation 21:2) , Heavenly Jerusalem @ (Hebrews 12:22), and Jerusalem Above @ (Galatians 4:26). What are these, and how do they differ?

a reply to: TheChrome

It starts with Isaiah 65:17-25 of which all refer to the kingdom of heaven.

a reply to: Seede

The Kingdom Of Heaven you refer to is called Heavenly Jerusalem, which encompasses ALL spirit creatures. At Hebrews 12:22,23 we see a general assembly of the Living God (Jehovah), the angels, the church of the firstborn, and Christ Jesus himself.

New Jerusalem is actually the celestial city of which Jesus taught was the kingdom of heaven.

You quoted (Revelation 21:2), which says “New Jerusalem…prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” Read a few verses further because it explains what New Jerusalem is: (Revelation 21:9) says: “I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” We know that Jesus is the Lamb, so New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ. So, New Jerusalem DOES NOT refer to the kingdom of heaven. Who exactly is the bride of Christ? I will let you answer, and then give my retort.

I leave the last one for you figure out. What is Jerusalem Above mentioned at Galatians 4:26?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheChrome

Revelation Chapter 13 verse 16.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads

17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

This is symbolic. It is symbolic of those who do not follow God. Bare in mind the righteous also receive a "mark" (Ezekiel 9:3) "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

We think we know who the antichirst will be, but we will never know until we actually take the mark, or the number, or he's name.

The antichrist is anyone who does not follow Christ, and that includes in deeds and actions. There is not some sort of singular "Antichrist" that will arise like some teach. The antichrist existed in Jesus' day and has continued to our day: "And as you have heard the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come." (1 John 2:18)

a reply to: TheChrome

This is symbolic. It is symbolic of those who do not follow God. Bare in mind the righteous also receive a "mark" (Ezekiel 9:3) "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

Yes, but Revelation 21:2 is a very different revelation all to gether. I mean it's very Clear that the holy city, new Jerusalem, is not what you think it is. One Clue is mentioned in revelation 22 verse 2.

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,

In genesis Chapter 2 verse 9. we are being told that the tree of life is in the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden.

- How many of these trees are there if this tree of life is not the only one?

If we agree that the tree of life is only located in the garden of Eden and nowhere else. We know that the holy city, new Jerusalem is actually the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden. Since we know this,...we also know a lot about who made it and who lives there at present day. We are also told what the Garden looks like now.... when it comes back to Earth.

a reply to: spy66

If we agree that the tree of life is only located in the garden of Eden and nowhere else. We know that the holy city, new Jerusalem is actually the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden. Since we know this,...we also know a lot about who made it and who lives there at present day. We are also told what the Garden looks like now.... when it comes back to Earth.

I admit that you have me confused when you stated that "when it come back to earth." Which earth are you referencing? I hope that you mean the new celestial earth and not this terrestrial earth which we live on today.

There are several confusing word plays in the NT of which Eden and Paradise are two of them. The reason for this is that we are trying to tie a knot between the Hebrew and the Greek. What is more confusing to some is that the NT will intermix the suggestive meanings in word play.

Let's take Eden first. Gan Eden was a celestial garden planted on a terrestrial earth in the OT understanding. It contained various fruits and water for the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is where some people will have a difference in understanding. The Hebrews of that era also called Gan Eden Paradise. Was Paradise in the garden or was Paradise actually the garden?

We have this same word play in the NT also. Luke 23:43 tells us that Jesus promised Ditma [the crucified confessing thief] that both he and Jesus would be together in Paradise the same day as they died. At this time it was believed that all spirits of the dead were assigned to Sheol. So most all scholars tell us that Paradise at this time was in Sheol [Netherworld]. So by this, the question is as follows. Was Paradise [Gan Eden] of the OT this same Paradise of the NT? If so then Paradise was moved to the Netherworld of Sheol. That is why the Hebrews considered Paradise a celestial abode.

Now we read in 2nd Corinthians 12:2-7 that Paradise is located in the third heaven and in Revelation we learn that this Paradise is located within the New Jerusalem. Revelation 2:7 gives the assumption that Paradise is now located in a section of the city of New Jerusalem where the trees of various fruit and water of life are located.

The question now is as follows. Is the Paradise of Gan Eden and the Paradise of Sheol and the Paradise of the celestial New Jerusalem all the same Paradise? Has it been celestial all this time or has it had substance change from terrestrial to celestial? You see how word play can be used?

Revelation 21 describes the celestial New Jerusalem and gives us the assumption that the trees and water of life are located on the grounds of the city but is not the city itself.

There is only one Jerusalem in Revelation and that is the celestial New Jerusalem which is shown after the destruction of this universe. The Jerusalem of Gal. 4:26 which is above, refers to the New Jerusalem which is located in the third celestial heaven.

The bride of Christ is the Church of Jesus the Christ of which there is much discourse in which church is the true bride.

a reply to: Seede

I admit that you have me confused when you stated that "when it come back to earth." Which earth are you referencing?

Sorry, bad choise of Words when i wrote: "back to Earth". The garden Lord God planted Eastward in Eden was never on Earth.
The only thing Lord God took from Earth was the dust of the ground he used to form man, who later was called Adam.


When it comes to Source. I only use KJV, nothing else. I use the Bible since moste People have their faith from what is written there.

When it comes to heaven. There is only one. The one that was mentioned when God created the: Heaven and the Earth.
That in my opinion is the true heaven. We dont know what the creator Gods heaven is like.

Now, Lord God is not the creator God. Lord God is a imposter God, and he also have his own heaven. We know a lot about Lord Gods heaven, because it is mentioned a lot in the Bible. Everything in the bible after genesis Chapter 1. is all Lord Gods inspiration to man. The creator God is resting as mentioned in genesis Chapter 2. verse 2.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheChrome

This is symbolic. It is symbolic of those who do not follow God. Bare in mind the righteous also receive a "mark" (Ezekiel 9:3) "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

Yes, but Revelation 21:2 is a very different revelation all to gether. I mean it's very Clear that the holy city, new Jerusalem, is not what you think it is. One Clue is mentioned in revelation 22 verse 2.

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,

In genesis Chapter 2 verse 9. we are being told that the tree of life is in the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden.

- How many of these trees are there if this tree of life is not the only one?

If we agree that the tree of life is only located in the garden of Eden and nowhere else. We know that the holy city, new Jerusalem is actually the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden. Since we know this,...we also know a lot about who made it and who lives there at present day. We are also told what the Garden looks like now.... when it comes back to Earth.

I don't have time to get into this, but the Tree of Revelation differs from the Tree of Eden. The Tree of Revelation you speak of is the source that New Jerusalem (The Bride of Christ) administers benefits of God's kingdom to humans on earth. The Tree of Revelation is what restores humanity to perfection during the 1000 year reign of Christ Jesus.

a reply to: TheChrome

I don't have time to get into this, but the Tree of Revelation differs from the Tree of Eden. The Tree of Revelation you speak of is the source that New Jerusalem (The Bride of Christ) administers benefits of God's kingdom to humans on earth. The Tree of Revelation is what restores humanity to perfection during the 1000 year reign of Christ Jesus.

Once again we can get into word play here. Luke 23:43 us that tells us that Jesus promised the one thief who He forgave that he [the thief] would be in Paradise with Him [Jesus] the very day that they both would die. Now there are some who insist that this means that they both would descend into Sheol while there are some that insist that this means that they would both ascend into the kingdom of heaven.

In this case Paradise is mentioned only three times in the KJV NT. The second time Paradise is mentioned is in 2nd Corinthians 12:2-4 in which the author states that Paradise is in the third heaven. So by this we can state that Paradise is not in Sheol but is in the Kingdom of Heaven which is located in the spiritual realm of the third heaven. By this we are led to understand that Jesus ascended with the thief into the third heaven.

The third time Paradise is mentioned is in Revelation 12:4, 22:2 and 22:14 and is stated that Paradise [Kingdom of Heaven] is located in New Jerusalem which is in the third heaven and contains the trees and water of everlasting life.

So the scriptures tell us that the justified thief [Ditmas] together with Jesus ascended to the New Jerusalem the very same day that they both died. Then where is Gan Eden? Gan Eden is Paradise and has always been Paradise. Would it then surprise you that the Gan Eden of Adam was always a celestial realm? The bible does not state that the garden was from this earth. In fact the bible tells us that the garden was planted by the Creator. Could it be that was the reason Adam was cast out upon this earth? Why did not the Creator simply remove the tree of life from the garden? Would that not have been easier than to cast Adam out and move the garden? Instead we see that the Gan Eden [Paradise] was moved from this terrestrial realm to the spiritual [celestial] ream. This suggests [to me] that the garden was always a spiritual realm.

Now comes the question as to why did the Creator plant His garden and put the man in the garden? Did not the scriptures tell us that that man was given authority over the entire earth? Why then was Adam confined in a garden and why did the Creator not have Adam plant his own garden? The entire purpose of this is lost somewhere.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: spy66

If we agree that the tree of life is only located in the garden of Eden and nowhere else. We know that the holy city, new Jerusalem is actually the garden Lord God planted eastward in Eden. Since we know this,...we also know a lot about who made it and who lives there at present day. We are also told what the Garden looks like now.... when it comes back to Earth.

I admit that you have me confused when you stated that "when it come back to earth." Which earth are you referencing? I hope that you mean the new celestial earth and not this terrestrial earth which we live on today.

There are several confusing word plays in the NT of which Eden and Paradise are two of them. The reason for this is that we are trying to tie a knot between the Hebrew and the Greek. What is more confusing to some is that the NT will intermix the suggestive meanings in word play.

Let's take Eden first. Gan Eden was a celestial garden planted on a terrestrial earth in the OT understanding. It contained various fruits and water for the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is where some people will have a difference in understanding. The Hebrews of that era also called Gan Eden Paradise. Was Paradise in the garden or was Paradise actually the garden?

We have this same word play in the NT also. Luke 23:43 tells us that Jesus promised Ditma [the crucified confessing thief] that both he and Jesus would be together in Paradise the same day as they died. At this time it was believed that all spirits of the dead were assigned to Sheol. So most all scholars tell us that Paradise at this time was in Sheol [Netherworld]. So by this, the question is as follows. Was Paradise [Gan Eden] of the OT this same Paradise of the NT? If so then Paradise was moved to the Netherworld of Sheol. That is why the Hebrews considered Paradise a celestial abode.

Now we read in 2nd Corinthians 12:2-7 that Paradise is located in the third heaven and in Revelation we learn that this Paradise is located within the New Jerusalem. Revelation 2:7 gives the assumption that Paradise is now located in a section of the city of New Jerusalem where the trees of various fruit and water of life are located.

The question now is as follows. Is the Paradise of Gan Eden and the Paradise of Sheol and the Paradise of the celestial New Jerusalem all the same Paradise? Has it been celestial all this time or has it had substance change from terrestrial to celestial? You see how word play can be used?

Revelation 21 describes the celestial New Jerusalem and gives us the assumption that the trees and water of life are located on the grounds of the city but is not the city itself.

There is only one Jerusalem in Revelation and that is the celestial New Jerusalem which is shown after the destruction of this universe. The Jerusalem of Gal. 4:26 which is above, refers to the New Jerusalem which is located in the third celestial heaven.

The bride of Christ is the Church of Jesus the Christ of which there is much discourse in which church is the true bride.

You cannot unravel the the Torah by trying to translate it literally. The truth is in the symbolics. Hidden to empower an educated priestly caste control over the masses. Fortunately today, most of the symbolics can be unravelved. One such explanation identifiess the snake that gaurds the garden of eden as our ego.

So Genesis is not discussing external materilistic objects. Its describing the battle between our mind/ego and our pure child like spiritual self. As stated in Matthew 18:3 "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.".

So is Matthew 18:3 the ultimate truth or is just belief in an entity (Be it GOD, Jesus, Buddha) enough to enter heaven.

I believe the battle between our true spiritual self and our ego is THE WAR (walking the desert to fight the demon). Unless we understand that concept we are not Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's or Buddhist but using labels to call ourselves such. Unless we win that war we will surely die.

GOD bless.

The key is to search the gospels for what they do agree on, which is that Christ was on the cross for 6 hours, and instead of making Christ out to be a magician and a miracle worker and saying that the world transformed into a cartoon after 6 hours and he passed away, you relate history to the physical known world and suggest that a person does not pass away on the cross after only 6 hours.

Then you study all of the apocrypha scriptures and you find that there is a story from ancient that tells how Joseph along with James made a deal with the Jews to take Christ down from the cross upon the agreement that he was to be exiled. You find that it was not uncommon for an important person being crucified to be let down from the cross after coming to an agreements with the ruling powers.

Then you trace the actual history of the church and find that in the church history it was recorded and practiced that Christ along with Joseph were exiled to England and you can find the actual landmarks and sites that hold the history of the church as a testimony to what happened in history. Why would there be a church history about locations and landmarks if it was just made up? Wouldn't it be easier for the Greeks to make up a story about Christ in the gospels written generations after his life? But blind people do not ask those questions.

Then you dig into the Dead Sea Scrolls and you can find references that Christ was exiled to a new land and taken away from all of his friends and apostles.

Instead of being so abstract and talking about borderline myth in your strange esoteric beliefs, Just Simply Listen To People. But they believe in the Greek Roman liars and ignore the Hebrews - really good choice (sarcastic).

a reply to: onehuman

Firstly, yournewswire.com is a 'fake news' clickbait site. Even Rational Wiki and Wikipedia have commentary about the site.

The yournewswire article (dated June 22,2017) refers to an article on the National Turk News website.

The "National Turk" website article (which is dated from February 23, 2012 and is filed as "American Breaking News" ??) says that the manuscript is written in Syriac. While there is a relationship between Aramaic and Syraic, there is also a similar relationship to other Northwestern Semitic languages, such as Caananite, Arabic, Hebrew and Phoenician. Calling Syraic a dialect of Aramaic is like calling French a dialect of Italian.

The National Turk article says that the manuscript is about 1500 years old (which makes it about 500 years younger than the 2,000 year old 'New Testament').

The National Turk article also said that police had recovered the book in a raid in the year 2000 (with no mention of the officers involved, or of their sources for the story within the police department). 12 years later it appears that the authorities still haven't had it valued it properly and had only recently donated it to a museum, go figure?

I did a quick google image search on the picture of the book and got hits dated 1998, two years before the manuscript was uncovered in the purported police raid?

The actual book of Barnabas, that this was supposed to be, clearly mentions Allah throughout, which places its writing well after Muhammad had founded Islam and therefore at least 600 years after the manuscripts supposed author, Barnabas, had died.

Additionally, the manuscript self-ascribes to Barnabas, "one of the twelve disciples". But Barnabas was not one of the 12 disciples. Barnabas was a friend of Paul who accompanied him on several of his missionary journeys, and, considering the anti-Pauline nature of the manuscript, makes it look VERY suspect.

The hoaxers got so many things wrong and were clearly Muslim (with an agenda to try and discredit the Gospels).

So, I'd say this is 'loudly a fake', by many separate pieces of evidence.