Who wrote the book of Revelation

a reply to: Cauliflower

Alchemy was the precursor to Chemistry. So yes, it makes sense that Newton believed in it. He was just on the wrong track with it.

Much of what are known as Isaac Newton's occult studies can largely be attributed to his study of alchemy.[2] Newton was deeply interested in all forms of natural sciences and materials science, an interest which would ultimately lead to some of his better-known contributions to science. During Newton's lifetime, the study of chemistry was still in its infancy, so many of his experimental studies used esoteric language and vague terminology more typically associated with alchemy and occultism.[3] It was not until several decades after Newton's death that experiments of stoichiometry under the pioneering works of Antoine Lavoisier were conducted, and analytical chemistry, with its associated nomenclature, came to resemble modern chemistry as we know it today. However, Newton's contemporary and fellow Royal Society member, Robert Boyle, had already discovered the basic concepts of modern chemistry and began establishing modern norms of experimental practice and communication in chemistry, information which Newton did not use.

Much of Newton's writing on alchemy may have been lost in a fire in his laboratory, so the true extent of his work in this area may have been larger than is currently known. Newton also suffered a nervous breakdown during his period of alchemical work, possibly due to some form of chemical poisoning (possibly from mercury, lead, or some other substance).[4]

Newton's writings suggest that one of the main goals of his alchemy may have been the discovery of the Philosopher's Stone (a material believed to turn base metals into gold), and perhaps to a lesser extent, the discovery of the highly coveted Elixir of Life.[4] Newton reportedly believed that a Diana's Tree, an alchemical demonstration producing a dendritic "growth" of silver from solution, was evidence that metals "possessed a sort of life."[6]

Some practices of alchemy were banned in England during Newton's lifetime, due in part to unscrupulous practitioners who would often promise wealthy benefactors unrealistic results in an attempt to swindle them. The English Crown, also fearing the potential devaluation of gold, should the Philosopher's Stone actually be discovered, made penalties for alchemy very severe. In some cases the punishment for unsanctioned alchemy would include the public hanging of an offender on a gilded scaffold while adorned with tinsel and other unspecified items.[4]

Source

a reply to: [post22950073]Elcabong[/post]

They are Greekified/Hebrewnized English words. In the English Bibles that contain them it is only Names they Greekify/Hebrewnize but none of the rest of the Bible are treated with such disrespect. It is doctrine of men to draw followers after themselves rather than God in the flesh, Jesus Christ. Otherwise the word Jailor in Acts 16:23 would read Yailor, and every instance of the word Jews would read Yews, and so forth with every word beginning with "J".

The truth be known in English YHWH is JHVH/JEHOVAH, Yeshua is is Jesus in English, and Yehohanan is John in English. The names in English are pure words of God, tried seven times, are the English TRANSLITERATIONS of the original Greek copies.

If these Greekified/Hebrewnized English words were true to transliteration of the whole name and words into English they would read Yesus, Yohn, Yames, Yoshua, Yabal, Yabbok, Yahaz, Yairus, Yambres and so on and so forth. But they are not true they are liars and peddlers of Gods word making themselves rich off of copyrights to their newer supposed better translations that never give you any indication where they have added to the word of God as the preserved word of God does by Italicizing the words they added so the reading in English is smooth and grammatically correct.

Stick the AV you can't go wrong and throw out those errant so called holy bibles.

The word of God is life to those who are appointed to life and death to those appointed to death. Their appointment is do to their own choice by Gods foreknowledge.

John, being a holy Man of God, wrote as he was moved of God to write the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ. You will notice in vs 19 it reads

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

this is a three in one Charge given him 1) to write "the things which thou hast seen" (past tense) the Gospel of John, 2) to write "the things that are" (present tense) his three letters, and "the things which shall be hereafter" (future tense) the rest of the book of Revelation.

Because of men perverting the word of God in mass since 1880's many theologians, so called godly men, got it wrong and made the verse read to mean only those things written within the book of Revelation. But then we could say that if that be true, John received no charge from God to write a gospel book or his three letters and proclaim they are not written by John. Which many a so called scholarly Theologian now claim to be so.

Your answer is John, brother of James martyred in Acts 12:2, writer of the book of James, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (since 2000 years before Christ there are Jews that had been scattered and still are and will be again in the future) before his death, the son of Zebedee.

originally posted by: DpatC
Serious question, who wrote the Book of Revelation[?]

The Julius Caesar-loyal Romans. Jesus and NT is orthodox Roman propaganda.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Are you for real, or just a troll?
Serious question.
3rd line.

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

It has been a teaching that an old TV preacher taught years ago, that took certain parts of the descriptions of the different beasts in Daniel and Revelation and created that Julius Caesar as the promoter of the Roman Jesus Myth that Paul taught.

I will assume people like Utnapisjtim, spend more time listening and watching men rather than truthfully studying their Bibles, especially the AV of the Bible. Or even checking to see in the context of any Bible verses they use to see if they are so. When we do that the Bible calls us more noble.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Believe what you want. I may not be the first to say this, but as you might have understood by now, I have come to the conclusion that NT is a split road, where Jesus and John et al (Gospels and Revelation) do their best to warn about and fight such treason as the one lead by Saulus AKA Paul, Barnabas and the other Pharisees who were loyal to the the Sanhedrin and the fake Caesars («Paul's» epistles preaching the direct opposite Jesus as John, while Peter is bound and gagged by Saulus).

Jesus was the only remaining direct descendant to Julius Caesar (named Heli in Luke, which is Julius written in Hebrew, the first Joseph was Caesarion, Juli Prince of Egypt). Saulus was a Pharisee bounty hunter to whom Peter called himself a slave of. Peter and the others were reaped and brought to Rome by the hand of Saulus and handed over to the Romans who in turn, tortured and killed the lot of them, while Saulus fled to Spain. Jesus actually paraded through Jerusalem as the new Caesar Sunday before Passover in 36 or 37 AD (Roman historians mix up the years, probably intentionally). Jesus denied being the Messiah, but he never returned the coin his critics gave him, saying it belonged to Caesar i.e. himself+++

Saulus was the instrument (false prophet) of the Beast, and the Beast are the Augusti and the fake Caesars, the lawless empire compared to the empire Jesus had in mind.

I'm afraid I wrote the book of Revelation, many many years past, so many years.

Around one thousand and fifty seven years ago on Yom Reeshon if I recall correctly, time does simplify things over the years so I apologise if im out a decade or two.

It was a time when I seeped to far into the Dark Side of the Force.

A time when my neighbor stole four of my cows and three chickens, yes three freakin chickens!!! The miz-day-en!!

I complained to the local Chieftain, who was called Kammat-Sutsaireia-Chemite-Ku-Chi. But because of an earlier dispute he sided with my thieving neighbor!!

The miz-day-en!

I was furious! and my wrath was... kinda internal.

So I travelled up to the great mountain of God called Horeb and meditated, sending my fury and anger out into the cosmos and connecting to the shard of Odium, becoming one with eternity...

Thats when I saw it!

I lived it!
I breathed it in, the fractured reality of the future rippling throughout time, choices apon choices shattering realities as time moves forward.

And then... and then I saw the end of my enemies.... The end of time....
[But not really cause things still happen afterwards.... you know like.... yeah!]

So when I came too from my meditation I wrote down what I experienced, and called it 'The Book of Revelation'.

For my enemies shall die within my life time!

And yet I tell you truly my unknown friend, the time of my enemies destruction has not come yet, and my enemies scions have become many!

So I plot...and play my guitar and videos games... some PSVR, fantasy books and freakin 4k TV!!!! and await my master Odium to right the wrong of Honor! And destroy Cultivation!

For the Wit shall claim all in the end, and the shards shall become one again. My master does not know this! Shhhhhh.

And we shall name him Gibletish.

The one who will save the Cosmere from the Fainlife, which is about to attack Scadrial, that harbours the god Harmony.

Harmony, a god torn between the need to Preserve, and the need to Ruin. A balance of power in harmony, never pulling one way or the other to influace or change reality in a major way.

Will the other shards save him, the others that have survived so far, or will Gibletish save us all.

Is the father Adonolsium a shard of a Crystal? And will Gibletish become GOD!


Coomba98

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It is either all of God's words are pure and true or none of them.

You can't have it both ways.

You demonstrate the effective hyper-dispensationalist/hyper-divisionist cults that are pervasive today in the world.

You only believe in parts of the you want so not all the gospels appeal to you, so they are gone i.e. such as give to him who asketh . . . So May I have your clothes please? You would never do it. How about your house may I have it? There is no qualification, you are to give without question. But you don't know why so you will make the excuse that I don't need them. But it doesn't say that in the context now does it? Which is in the same section of teaching you like in Matt 5.

You get rid of most of the Gospel books, almost all of the book of Acts, All of Paul's, Peter's, James', John's writings, except when they serve your perverted purpose. And most of if not all of the Book of revelation. Not to mention all of the OT.

So there you have it you believe only a small set of verses and claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. But in reality you are not even saved at all. You are like all sinners who are not saved by grace through faith on Christ. LOST!

And you're trying to tell me about salvation and books of the Bible, with unprovable facts and perverse interpretations of God's words. I hold in my hand and have all of God's words 66 books in all and all of them are for me.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It is either all of God's words are pure and true or none of them.

Where are those rules written? The Bible is a collection or compendium of human imagination and reflects the common sense of the bronze age Hebrews, compiled and refined by priests and royal scribes over a couple millennia. Only thing claimed to have been written by God in the Bible, are the letters on the two slates Moses destroyed and are of course lost forever. Where do you have the idea that God's word is the Bible?

Jesus explains God's Word as his son and conquerer, i.e. the next legitimate Caesar in line after himself and a bloodline that lead to European royalty, the heirs to the Roman Empire. God's word as in God's promise or order. First mitzvah is traditionally considered to be marriage and having offspring, so if Jesus was unmarried and didn't have any children, he would be a sinner according to Torah law, he wouldn't be able to work as rabbi and would be excluded from speaking in synagogues and the Temple. That Jesus did all of this, speaking in the temple and the synagogues and being entitled rabbi and being allowed to walk with women-- only shows how he was indeed married and had, probably plenty, children. Had Jesus been unmarried it would be considered a scandal and the fact that this is not mentioned in any of the writings considered canon only shows to prove Jesus was indeed a married man.

I, on the other hand, consider the first mitzvot to be study our environment, and conquering land and make language and laws for it, further God demands mastering and understanding techniques of making fire and light. Without fire, nothing living would exist. However none of the mitzvot of Genesis 1 are traditionally counted among the trad. 613 mitzvot of the Torah...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

God sets the rules, we must use those rules in the preserved English Text that he preserved in English for us Ps 12:6, 7. We must believe them all or none. If not then we are Bible agnostics. If we are Bible agnostics then just throw out the Bible and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

What I can tell from your statement is you do not read the Bible very much, and if you do you must be reading it with preconceived interpretative glasses on.

Study, rightly divide 2Tim 2:15, compare spiritual things with Spiritual as the Holy Ghost teacheth (an example to teach and learn) 1Cor 2, Pure words psalm 12:6,7 , Truth, true words Ps 119, and are found through out the Bible. Use a Bible program and search the AV to see these verses and more.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't read Saulus. He is the worst of his kind, and inquisitor and a bounty hunter a criminal and an enemy of Christ. So take your 2tim and stuff it somewhere where it can never be read

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

How do you feel about Luke, a disciple of Jesus who spent sufficient time with Him to be discipled and discern truth from error as taught by the Master?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Oh real Jesus like aren't we?

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Luke was a Roman physician who never met Jesus. In addition to the gospel of Luke, he also wrote Acts, which was written several decades ater Jesus died. None of the biographers who wrote the gospels of Jesus ever met him. Much less Saulus. The gospel of John is a biography wrote second hand based on the memories of an unnamed person who claimed to be close to Jesus.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Huh?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And your sources and evidence for these convictions are.....?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Huh?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: ChesterJohn

So take your 2tim and stuff it somewhere where it can never be read

Telling someone to "Stuff It" is definitely not Jesus Like wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: DpatC

You weren’t talking to the real Azazel or Lucifer. These two fallen angels are currently in prison. Azazel was banished under the earth and is chained up somewhere in a cavern. The Norse legends call him Loki. This Norse trickster god is also tied up in the underworld. Lucifer was rounded up with some other fallen angels who were banished into the core of a long-period comet.

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Haha. It's common knowledge for heavens' sakes. A fool can ask more than 10 wise men can answer. Do your primaries yourself, I am not your teacher. I'd rather ask you where on Earth you got the idea that Luke was a disciple of Jesus? Saulus says Luke was a physician, and Luke was a slave of Saulus together with Peter, John and the others. Saulus was never martyred, he either fled to Spain as soon as he had handed over his Christian slaves to Rome, or he was killed by Christians hiding in the catacombs of Rome.