IIT we discuss and study the Bible. I will be using the King James Version and will take the stance of a fundamental literalist, which is a bit redundant, but these days there exist many that claim to be fundamental but reject the literal interpretation of Scripture when they encounter something they don't agree or understand. I am not a Bible scholar, I'm not a pastor, I don't currently attend any denomination's church service. I'm just an anon that really like to study the Bible. Feel free to argue with me, I could be completely wrong and I hope to learn more about the Bible along the way.
I will post below my first study topic and what I have researched about it. Hopefully it will be interesting and somewhat engaging.
First topic, my study of Revelation and the nature of the beast. I find it fascinating that a large percentage believe that the beast is connected to Rome directly. I can understand why, but it contradicts so much of what else everyone believes about the beast and from my research, I think it contridicts what the Bible is trying to say as well. To being our dive, we need to look at passages about the beast and learn what we are discussing to begin with.
The beast, though first is mentioned in Revelation 11:7, is first described to us in Revelation 13:1 which reads:
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Here we get a look into the specifics of the beast, and as we focus on each piece, it becomes clearer what is being told to us, because each part is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. We will begin with "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns...". Seven heads? Ten horns? What could this mean? Whenever you have a question to what the Bible means, you need to read more and find answers that the Bible will give you. We can find direct reference to these qualities in Revelation 17, which we will come back to in full, but for now we will look specifically in 17:9-13.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
So the beast is much more complex than just one antichrist. It is seven heads, or mountains, and there are seven kings, of which five are fallen, one is, and one is to come. The beast itself is the eighth king in this organization of kings, of the seven kings, and which will go into perdition, or destruction in other words. The ten horns are another set of kings, but they have no kingdom and thus no power, but will be given that power an hour with the beast. All of which will boost the power of control of the world to this beast. So we learned that the Bible considers the beast to both be this conglomeration of kings to be the beast, and the antichrist himself as the beast. This will be important during further exploration of the passages. Why is this? Because the heads of the beast and the horns are important, but overall subservient to the antichrist and Satan as part of the whole of the beast. This understanding will help the rest of the book make so much more sense, though of course, my understanding is still limited.
Back to that passage in chapter 17, we see something I glanced over and is the point of much confusion, the woman. In the very first verse and on through chapter 17, the focus is less on the beast, but this woman, so let's learn who she is.
1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
This is a lot to unpack already, but let's start taking the pieces and start gaining understanding. First we learn that the woman has committed fornication with the kings of earth and the inhabitants are made drunk with the wine, or the results of it. This means the masses benifit from the existance and meddling the nations of the earth have with interaction with the woman. Next, we see the woman sit on the beast who we learned about before, and the woman is given royalty clothing and royal riches and her cup is full of the abominations she has commited with the kings of earth. On her forehead are the words "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH". We begin to gain more of a picture of the evils the woman has done as the woman is drunk on the blood of saints and martyrs of Jesus. The angel then says to not marvel because he is going to reveal the mystery of what we are seeing. He first goes into explaining the beast and then go on to explain the connection with the beast and this woman.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
So we learn from the rest of the chapter more critical things to the identity of the woman, so let's piece it all together. First, the woman is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth. She commits fornication with all the nations. She sits on many waters, which is is explained to be peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. Next, God makes the nations give their kingdoms unto the beast to fulfil the prophecies. Next, her head is labeled Mystery, Babylon the Great, according to what is written on her forehead. She sits upon seven mountains
Before I reveal the indentiy I believe this to be, let's go over the popular theory, Rome. Rome does fit a couple of these clues, such as reached far, under seveal tounges, seveal nations did willingly give themselves over to Roman authority, it sits upon seven mountains, they were certainly rich, royal, and they did make martyrs, however it comes up short of all the marks needed. Why would Rome be Babylon the Great? There is no great connection to Babylon and the Roman Empire. No where else in the Bible is any great empire just given the title of Babylon for being big or sinful. Rome was never made God really angry like this woman is clearly making him. Rome never fornicated with other kings, they made those kings their underlings, if not disolved them. And then there are the ten kings given power which hate the woman and burn her. There were internal conflicts with Rome and their power struggles, but ten kings given power by the beast and hating Rome, and then burning it? All the other prophecies such as the living statue and the firey mountain that falls upon the waters and more are not fulfilled literally under Rome. You would have to say a ton of the book is metaphor but the woman is definitely a real city. And to top it off, Rome existed, which stands appart from the beast which the city is on not previously being, not being, and yet is. It isn't adding up.
I believe the city is the rebuilt Jerusalem we have today. First, the nation of Israel that exists today exists after it was previously not a nation, it isn't a nation, and yet is. It itself is a ruler among the kings it fornicates with, five kings that are no more, one that is, and one that will be. The identies of these, I don't have enough evidence of, but Israel is responsible for the destruction of countless prophets of God and believers, who use their power and influence to do it, gaining riches off of their fornication in other nations, never a real part of them, but always profitting. The Jews expand across most all nation, among many tongues and multitudes. They make the kings protect them and give them tribute, having power over them as that city that reigneth over the kings of the earth and God makes them give their lands over to fulfil the prophecy of the antichrist. All it takes is a search to find out that Jerusalem also sits upon seven mountains, at least their claim is such. And the final argument to this identity is the name. Mystery, Babylon the Great. Which city was raided and the people taken into captivity in Babylon? And the jews there formed the Sanhedren, a governing body that would try to keep the law, but just as Jews tend to do, take on religious practices from the area and disobey God. This organization would encounter Jesus in John chapter 3 and would go on along with their Pharasees, conspire the death of Jesus. This organization is in essence, the continuation of Babylon in spirit. We will see later that areas will be called by what they are spiritually as well as physically, such as in Revelation 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
We know Jesus is crucified in Israel, but yet it is not seen as Israel to God. It is a wicked place that is not of His promise, to be destroyed like Sodom and a place of idolatry like Egypt.
So it is my conclusion that the events of Revelation have not yet transpired and the nature of the beast is made up of Jerusalem as the woman, or the one controlling the beast. The beast is not just the antichrist, but him with more players than what we are lead to believe and in fact many nations. We have been deceived if we are looking for one man to control us, though it is the number of a man that will bind so many.
I will pick back up with more about the fate of the woman that continues in chapter 18 and more lessons to be had in Revelation soon.
I'll be taking a stance of 'oh fug it's a plot and plan'
Starting from the beginning for this.
Starting from the begining.>tldr I see it more as an instruction manual and plot.
1:1 God (all that is good and right and true) passes a message to Jesus, to show Jesus' servants "things which must shortly come to pass;" ie stuff that will happen and also must be accomplished.
John who got the message saw the angel of verification.
1:2 John recorded it. It's totes true.
1:3 Four things
They understand the message
Do the message
Do it NOW!
1:4 + 1:5 okay going to shoot a bit in the dark just with the KJB
John (YOU do the four things which is YOU who is also Loyal and Reliable). Is of and from and communicates with the seven churches.
Do that Jesus, and Jesus' seven spirit bros are gonna be cool with (YOU from whenever) ie always applies.
1:5 Jesus Christ IS the witness (of what is good, right, and true) and is very trust worthy. Born of, Risen of, Came from (kinda odd) from THE DEAD. Because Jesus is the prince of the kings of Earth. Can do no wrong the sins are washed away.
[I think this is a passage saying that when truth, righteousness, dies the kings can't be held accountable.]
1:6 Also in case anyone wasn't sure that means (((US))). Forever. In accordance to the highest power ever.<Okay so the definitions of how this will play out is set A John, The Jesus (truth from the dead), and the (Kings and Priests)
So cloud time.
1:7 Clouds (the PLAN) are going to come (good, bad, whatever). They will poke at the cloud (PLAN) and nothing happens it's above and soft to go right through. (Sort of reminds you of (((some group))). No matter if they throw a fit or moan do it.
1:8 There is the ULTIMATE GOODNESS AND TRUTH AND JUSTICE. Always.
1:9 it's me John who wrote this, writing from Patmos. Also broski I'll be with you for these instructions. This has been a prerecorded message. Also it's really for reals.
1:10 Here's the message. For reals, on a sunday with absolute authority.
1:11 DUDE! Record this. Spam it everywhere who is of likeness of faith!
1:12 Seven Candle Sticks
1:13middle one is kinda like a man, but it's a not-girl. He has clothing to the feet and also a bra.
1:14 White hair, fire passion eyes of living.
1:15 Brass colored feet, cause he still is a candle. A voice the sound of many waters.<going to real here that's kind of sketchy, but visions are whatever
1:16 He got stars in his right hand. His mouth has a double EDGED SWORD. HMMMM. Also his face was of the sun with Strength.
1:17 Bow most low before God Jesus.
1:18 SUPRISE! It's God Jesus. Really.
1:19 You better write this down for reals.
1:20 Stars are angles of those churches, Churches are candles.
Definately writteded down.
1 To the CHURCH AT THE TRADE CENTER OF THE WORLD
2 So far not a bad job. Nice work removing unwanted elements.
3 You did it according to The Plan.
4 Yah dun goofed. The point is to SUPPORT (US) and (The Plan).
5 If you don't the pimp hand of smiting is at the ready to remove you CHURCH AT THE CENTER OF ALL TRADE.
6 Although you did good about hating Nicolaitans. Keep on hating them.
(The first point of worship is to US, and the PLAN)
7 Succeed you will be Rewarded.
8 To THE CHURCH AT THE MOST STRATIGIC PLACE.>I'm assuming this is in a high population that is antithetical to the Plan and is hostile.
9 I know what you've been up to. You're loaded with riches. Because of your location I know there are also Flase Jews near you. That's bad that there are False Jews. Really evil.
10 No matter what happens maintain your position, even if they kill some of you.
11 I won't go ruin you if you do The Plan when you die.
12 To THE CHURCH IN THE SEAT OF EVIL
13 Job review, Holding fast to the name in the asscrack of evil. That's good.
14 You are cracking under the pressure. Actually turning against the Israelites, The Jews, US, The Plan! Bad!
15 Then CHURCH IN THE SEAT OF EVIL you follow Nicolaitans. US, FIRST! ALWAYS!
16 Fix it or else.
17 If you are listening. WE will harbor you, and create a new identity for you.
18 To THE CHURCH THAT SITS ABOVE THE OLD HEATHIN GROUNDS WHO ALSO PRODUCE STUFF.
19 You do Works but also works
20 Jezebel isn't US, The Plan. Disregard the false prophetess. Who is making you fornicate, take that is for US, and be taught Wrongly. Bad.
21 The fuckery has gone on long enough, Jezebel was one of Us, but is fuckering everything up.
22 So rape the cunt, and repent! Obey US!
23 Then we gut her children. It's a show of force. The only one You all obey is US, The Plan.
24 Stay there do not slide any more DO NOTHING TILL THE PLAN, AND US GET THERE. THAT'S ALL.
25 Most Loyal and steadfast of followers WAIT FOR US. AND ONLY US.
26 You that OBEY the best will be put in charge of the Nations.
27 Rule those Nations till they shatter! An Iron Rod on Pottery!
28 Do so You will have a place among us. The Morning Star.
29 LISTEN OR ELSE.
3 Chapter 3
1 To THE CHURCH IN THE MILITARY STRONGHOLD
2 Okay SPYS you and yours alone will hold up what is about to be dead. Patrols, Walls, Buildings, Organizations. You need to do better! For Spy stuff and sabotage.
3 You better pay attention or you will be among the casualties.
4 Those Agents that haven't done dirty work, join US Publicly.
5 The mask you wear when WE, US The Plan. Arrives must be pure and clean. You won't die, but Your fate still remains to be seen.
7 To THE CHURCH OF PHILADELPHIA THE MOST LOYAL. You obeyed good and well. The reward will be to enter into Our Kingdom on Earth. You've Opened what US said to be open. You've Closed what US The Plan have said to keep Closed.
8 You did what We commanded loyaly, without fail, even with little resources. You've also kept Pure to The Plan!<Here's the reward.>Next post.
“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” Rev 3:9
First make them (Target A) of the vilest evil and paint them blackest of evils.
(Target A) say the synagogue of Satan is jews. That's bad.
(Target A) also are not jews.
Thus (Target A) are liars. Jews totally arn't evil, goy.
So by using the name of all that is good and righteous (Target A) will kneel in reverence.
(Target A) knows that (which is (((them))) ) are blessed by good and righteousness.
10 For an outstanding job you will be by my side without want. Because The Plan demands hardships, THE CHURCH OF THE MOST LOYAL will be granted gifts as well.
11 For keeping The Plan's Reign of ruleing. It will be praised.<So far this looks like world domination
12 You will be By Us our side for all of time. Disapear Forever from the outside. You will be OF GOODNESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. To enter our secret city of The Plan! "And I will write upon him my new name."
13 end message.
14 To THE CHURCH OF MOSTLY JEWS, WELL OFF, AND LITTLE TROUBLES
15 You contribute a middling degree to Us. It's mediocre.
16 Not fit for US.
17 You say you don't need to pay. You're wrong.
18 You are to buy US Gold, and Wealth, and Riches! Shame on you. For if you have done so we will cloth, feed, shelter, and enrich you well enough. (Specifically untraceable gold, or pure refined gold.)
19 Go Excel in The Plan.
20 You would have a place by The Plan. Give unto Us the everything. Your things will be The Plan's things.
21 The place for you may be reciprocated if you do a well enough job. By The Plan's seat of power.
22 End of this message and you have better listened.
The next chapter looks a bit different so I'll take a break for now.
Next, we will look at Revelation chapter 18 to finalize our conclusion about the identity of the woman, that city, Babylon the Great.
1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
In this chapter, we jump forward to the destruction of Babylon. Once destroyed, it will be a habitation of devils, foul spirits, and only fit for birds. It reaffirms that this city is the same as in chapter 17, talking about how it fornicated with the kings of earth, adding this time that merchants of the earth are made rich from this city. Before we jump to our previous conclusion, we will look at the rest of the chapter and piece together the clues that might lead people to think it is Rome and see if they hold up under the literal interpretation.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Next, the people of God are called out to leave this place. It is hard to imagine people would live in wickedness like this, but just as Lot in Genesis 19 chose to live in Sodom and Gomorrha, we can find ourselves justifying living in sinful places. Just as God called out Lot, as corrupted by the sin of the city as he was, He will call out those that He will call his people out from destruction before it is too late. Next it mentions the sins of this place and how it reaches God. Babylon the Great will say that it cannot be touched, that it rules over all as a queen, that it is not a widow, meaning it never stopped being with God, and will never see sorrow. Basically, this city believes it to be the chosen city, but God will judge it with plauges and to be destroyed by fire all in one day. This is what people tend to trip themselves up with. Rome was burned down and had devistating plauges, so therefore it must be Rome and the events of this passage if not the whole book must have already happened according to this theory. Let's keep reading to find out if this holds up.
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. 11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
They city's loss is being mourned, not for the people in it, but the power and riches lost. It then lists all mechandise that the city had and could be traded with the final qualifier "and thou shalt find them no more at all". This at the very least means that never again can these items be found in this city. It could imply an even greater effect in the economy that crashes it worldwide and it becomes very hard to find these things at all, but at the very least these items can not be traded ever again in the city once destroyed. Take a look at Rome and see if any of the listed items can be found and traded today. This alone can disprove the Roman connection to the city with the literal interpretation of the text, but we still have the rest of the chapter to dive into and learn from.
15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
We again see that God is extremely angry at this city and said that it is being destroyed as vengeance for all the apostles and prophets. Now, Rome did have Christians killed, but is God's divine vengeance really burning down the city, to have it rebuilt, to have it slowly fall apart much later, then still exist and a far lesser presence on the world stage? His wrath must be on another city.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no* craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
And lastly, we find the final verses that put a nail in the coffin of the Rome theory. The stone being tossed in the sea is a metaphor for how violent the end of the city will be. It will be utterly wiped out. And if you think there is any recovery from this, it goes on to say that there will be no more sound of music, no craftsmen of any craft, and the sound of millstones, possibly meaning machines, but at the least meaning no food production being in the city, the light of candles will shine no more, and there will be no more weddings. This city is completely dead. Even if you attempt to build it back, there is no saving it without these things. It then says that the merchants of this city were the great men of earth, people holding power, and the sorceries of this city were all nations deceived. And this woman, this city, Babylon the Great, is found to be responsible for the deaths of the prophets, the saints, and all that were slain upon the earth. What other place could it be than our greatest ally? What other place has biblically always been responsible for the deaths of the prophets, even having Jesus say as much (Matthew 23:29-39, Luke 11:47-54). It is possible that a city not yet built, or a city of another name is Babylon, but it seems clear from all of these passages that it must be Jerusalem.
All of this was necessary to learn who we are talking about come the rest of Revelation. Next time, we will go over Revelation chapter 1, as it seems to be a topic of interest in this thread, and the build up to the events of the rest of the book. I will try to link up more passages from other books that tell us what to expect from the last days before these events are to transpire. I hope you all enjoy the study as much as I do, because this has been rather fun to type up. I can't promise to update regularly, but I will try my best.
What does the Jerico stuff mean?
Not sure what you are referring to by Jericho. If you mean that you want to dive into that part of the Bible where the city of that name was destroyed, we can certainly do that, but I would like you to explain the question a bit better and it will help me focus a study into the topic.>>3421
Now we pick up at the beginning of Revelation, knowing some background of the main characters to watch as the story progresses.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
It opens with an introduction of who is writing the book. It is John who bore record of the testimony of Jesus and all the things he saw. This means that the writer is the same John that was the disciple of Jesus.
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
This opening sets the tone for the rest of the book. The seven churches in Asia, which is to say Asia Minor, modern day Turkey, are also tied to seven Spirits where are before the throne of God. John will go more into detail about this, but these churches are the focus of dicipline from God as are in need of correction and guidance. He reminds them of the return of Christ, which for those that are saved, we know Him as the one that loved us and washed us from sins by taking our place. But for the rest that live to see His return, it will be quite a different experience. Everyone is see him and all people of earth will wail. At the time of His return, they will have been following a false messiah, so the appearance of the Savior will bring sorrow.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying,I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
John discribes himself being in the Spirit of the Lord's day, which means he was no longer bound to his body. In which, he will see wonders and is told to write down what is seen on the Lord's Day, or the events of Revelation.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
The seven candlesticks appear and in the midst of them is the Son of man, which is another name for Jesus. John describes him as looking like unto Jesus because He certainly does look a bit different. Here He is described, among other visuals, as having seven stars in his right hand and a twoedged sword in his mouth. The stars are explained in verse 20 as being the angels of the seven churches, which the seven candlesticks are the churches themselves, which Jesus is in the midst of. The sword is not explained, though Bible knowlege can be applied to how the tongue is sharper than a twoedged sword, but much more importantly, as is the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). This means that God is going to cut deep with His rebuke of the churches.
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Here we being with the first church at Ephesus. Jesus points out to them a praise of what they have done so far, rejecting evil and also trying, or testing, those that claim to be apostles. This is a problem several churches had at the beginning and the subversion did not lead to good results. In fact, the majority of the deception came from, you guessed it, the Jewish population (Titus 1:10-16) and would corrupt the congregation into becoming sinful and desiring to be made customers to the merchandise of their teachings (II Peter 2:1-3). It is important to note that this city that has massive cultural diversity, heavy pagan roots, and a Jewish presence, once before tried to cast out all Christians on behalf of the loss of sales of idols to worship (Acts 19:23-41). Even still, a church was set up and refused to let their members fall into this trap of many false teachers pulling them into conformity with the surrounding religious mix of so many gods from so many nations and peoples.
Despite this defense of their faith, the still are lacking in the sight of God. They lost the first love, or the passion and desire to follow God. They focused more on those trials to see who is a flase prophet than applying those very trials to themselves to be actively teaching the truth to more people, avoiding the grip of false prophets altogether. They must remember that they are sinners brought out of destruction and to do the first works, spreading the gospel. Next, Jesus mentions the Nicolaitans and how He hates them. In order to find out if they are a good group or not, you simply need to find out who they are and what they believe, which seems to be Balaamism. Balaam is mentioned thoughout the Bible but notably in the church era in II Peter 2:10-22. It is a massive perversion based on obtaining wealth, eating meat sacrificed to gods, fornication, and celebrating all other feasts of other religions, including the practices that come with them. Nothing says you are a Christian than a feast to Baal and an after party of fornication.
Jesus then wraps up talking to this church with a often used phrase of his: He that hath ears, let him hear. This means that something important is to be taken away from all of this, which is that if you overcome, you will eat of the tree of life, meaning you will have life abundant in eternity. Threw this one together a bit fast. I will spend more time tomorrow finishing the rest of the churches and going into what to expect of the last days, then it will be on to the meat of the book, the events of Revelation.
I don't understand the Jericho part of the bible. What did that part mean/represent? What lessons can be taken away from it?
The Old Testament is a mix of lessons in books such as Proverbs and historical accounts. Though you might draw a lesson or two from the account, it is mainly a historical piece. Let's go over the text and see what we can learn.
1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
In order to understand Jericho, we have to first understand the background of the new leader of the Israelites. This is Joshua, who was told to take command after the death of Moses. Moses was barred from leading the people any further after he disobeyed the order to speak unto the rocks for water to come forth. He instead did so and also struck them, making it appear to be not only himself that has this power, but also appeared to be a mundane discovery. Perhaps the water was just there and you simply had to hit the rock to reveal it. If you just speak and water begins to burst out of a rock, that rules out most all physical explanations other than pure luck that you timed your voice at that precise moment of it going to happen regardless. Moses was then condemned to stay upon a mountain that had view over the land the Israelites would one day occupy.
Now Joshua was chosen by God to be the replacement for Moses (Deuteronomy 31:14-21) in which God also says that the people once in this new land will betray Him for the gods of this land and forsake God despite all that He will do for them. He then comands Moses to have a song written to try to delay this fate, that the memories of what has taken place would not be lost to their decendants. The inheritance of the land promised to the ancestors would then fall upon Joshua. As we pick back up in our passage, we find that once Joshua enters this land, that everywhere he lives to venture is going to be his. God also then promises that no one will be able to stand against him. Thus the Israelites set off and approached Jericho, the Caananite stonghold. Joshua sent spies to scout the city, and they hid in a house of a harlot named Rahab (Joshua 2:1-21). She kept the spies hidden and in return, the spies swore that anyone lodged inside the house of her father would be safe as long as they didn't leave the house in the invasion. The spies returned to the army of Joshua, but there was a problem. The army had to cross over the river Jordan to get to the fortified city, which at that time of year, had flooded. Joshua was told by God that he would have them pass right though the river, much like He had them do in the Red Sea (Joshua 3:14-17). So at this point, the Israelites have just moved their whole army over the river like it was nothing and are ready for a fight, and the kings of the Amorites, which were on the other side of this river, just did a double take and many lost the will to fight altogther (Joshua 5:1).
Now we get to the familiar part of the story. Joshua starts to advance towards Jericho, which has not surrendered, being a stronghold city. They believe that they can simply out attrition them and wait for all the disheartened kings to regain their will to fight an enemy that can't take over the city. And so Joshua seeks help from God to figure out the answer of what to do.
13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
1 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. 2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. 3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once*. Thus shalt thou do six days. 4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. 5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.
And so the captain of the LORD's host appears, which in named LORD in the following chapter, tells Joshua about what must happen to overtake the city. The whole army has to walk around the city once for six days straight with the ark of the covenant and trumpets also making the march. The seventh day calls for seven circles and then everyone will sound trumpets and shout which will then proceed with the walls falling down on their own. This act of faith would mean it would be impossible to happen without a direct intervention from God, as the likelihood of some earthquake hitting exactly one week as they did their circle ritual and at the same time they blew their horns and shouted, after they crossed an entire army over a flooded river is zero.
So Joshua and the Israelites actually do what is requested of them and follow the procedure exactly as was told of them (Joshua 6:6-20). About time.
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
And so the city was razed. Not a soul was spared save those that were in the house promised to be spared, not an animal either, only the metals were kept to add to the treasures and construction of the temple that would one day be built. Those of that house were then integrated into Israel, allowed to live there for the rest of their days. At the end of this passage, we get a curse. Whoever rebuilds Jericho will lose his firstborn son laying the new foundation, and the youngest will die setting up the gates to the city. This curse is fulfilled during the rule of Ahab, the wicked king, by one named Hiel the Bethelite.
I Kings 16
30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him. 31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. 32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. 33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. 34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.
Which means across authors of the Bible and across history, this one curse was kept true. Even if you deny all the events of the books, it is thought that the books of Joshua and I Kings were written nearly 500 years apart, and this detail was kept in the writing of both authors. If you take away anything from this, hopefully it is attention to detail at the very least.
Now for lessons. This is a heavily historical focused passage, so we don't get a direct lesson, but we could come up with one. When you have instruction from God, do it precisely as and when He says to do it. We get our instruction daily from the Word already preserved in the Bible. We have the ability to apply it to everything we do. It is our failure to read, listen, and apply. We don't need to add to it like Moses. We need to do it just as it says like Joshua, even if it doesn't seem logical. Because in the end, God knows the outcome, controls the events, and guides us to victory against impossible odds. Another lesson might be if you are going to be pagan, don't worship Molech and Baal. God gets really pissed with those religions and declares genocide if you don't repent. Baby sacrifice by fire tends to make God a bit angry. This was a pretty good study, so let me know if you have any more questions or study ideas.
What is your favourite part of the bible?
Sorry for the delay. I would say my favorite is the book of Ecclesiastes. It is written looking back on life and realizing the meaninglessness of doing everything for yourself. As you gain wisdom, you gain sorrow. How even as the world appears to change, there is nothing new under the sun. There is a time and place for everything, and the conclusion of fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
Fukkin A right it is. From memory:
Whether or not there is a literal God is irrelevant; one will endeavor to live a good and righteous life if one abides his commandments and teachings (paraphrased)
Sorry for not posting so much, but I have been strapped for time lately. Let's quickly look at the next passage in Revelation.
8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Jesus introduces Himself in an important way to this city, as He died for them and is now alive. He knows their works, their trials they are facing, and how they live in poverty, but yet they are rich in Christ. This reminds me of this particular passage:
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
The riches of God are your works that are worth something. Everything in this world will burn, so what is worth something is what you did with this world before it burned. This all happens in heaven as you notice at the end of the passage "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." This is when we see our life's work burn before God, and the wood, hay, and stubble will be the useless, the selfish, and the pointless we have done. Whether it be time wasted, potential forgone, or people we hurt along the way will all make us suffer loss. But the gold, silver, and precious stone is what we did in the name of God, so that He receives the glory, the people we helped and led to salvation, and what we did to grow in Christ and better serve him will all be preserved and rewarded.
Continuing in Revelation, Jesus also knows the blasphemy of the false Jews, which are the synagogue of Satan. This could be people that appear to be Jewish and are passing as them, perhaps Samaritans or just race mixing Jews, or perhaps even Jews themselves which are of their father the devil (John 8:44). Regardless of the case, they were using their position to try to corrupt and destroy the church. Jesus then goes on to say that you are not to fear the things you will suffer by their hands, with prison and tribulation. Keep the faith unto death and you will be rewarded the crown of life, a reward like previously mentioned for doing something worth doing in your life. He wraps up the passage reminding that though you can die in this body, you are kept from the second death, eternal death.
An interesting side note, Polycarp, a bishop of this city way back when, was burned for his faith with the help of Jews, who gathered wood for the fire during the Sabbath, which they are not allowed by their law to work on, and denied him a burial after the execution.
This wasn't my best study session. I will try a bit harder next time to piece together a more coherent explanation of the content, but I felt like I really needed to make this one to get back into the swing of things.
Why do you think so many Christian sites turn into cuckservative playpens where boomer christians grumble to each other about this week's real-hate crime against christians and refuse to allow any talk the left deems racist/jewphobic/antisandniggeric/sexist?
I'd like to enrich this bread with an original NatSoc point of view about Christianity.>Six Chapters on Christianity and National Socialism (AUDIO BOOK read by The Fascifist)https://www.bitchute.com/video/Gho3eM25nIPE/
That would be a combination of many things. First would be that the older, indoctrinated generation is what largely remains of the faith, as they failed to teach their children in the way they should go, leaving a mainly godless generation in their wake (Proverbs 22:6, 2 Timothy 3:1-7). This has drastically decreased how many Christians you can find that are not boomer age range.
Second, the majority of Christians that care about the religion are slightly right of center, of which the prevailing political beliefs are light conservativism with a helping of distain for racism, unless it is pro-Israeli racism.
Third, the Bible says God doesn't discriminate in faith, allowing all that believe to be saved, and will judge based on this alone and not race, which leads people to take the opposite extreme and believe God is saying to destroy our home and race to appease other races. They forget that God commanded the separation of man across the world, effectively commanding the races to be formed, but the rebellion to create the Tower of Babel forced God to fast track the race creation by altering the languages of the people, forming new base languages and undoing the ability to cooperate effectively to form a world government in defiance of God. (Genesis 11:1-9)
I suppose it is impossible to engage directly in a way you might be used to, by posting and sharing quickly and efficiently. It would take studies that slowly reveal to them the truth of the Bible in full, should God help reveal it to them. People that try to understand the Bible without divine aid by the Holy Spirit and study are doomed to get lost in misinterpretation and will dive into heresy and worship of Satan, either directly or indirectly (2 Peter 3:16-17).
The Five Solae & Trinitarianism roundly sum up true, Biblical Christianity:
Jesus, the Father, and Holy Spirit are all God & One
All beliefs must be founded upon Holy Scripture, which is the ultimate authority. Traditions can be healthy but must not add to or take away from Scriptural doctrine.
We are saved by the Grace of God & faith in Jesus alone. Good works are the fruit, not the means, of salvation & are done to please God & extend His love to others.
Jesus was the final atonement for our sins so that God can forgive us and grant us eternal life by His conquest of death itself. We need not atone for our sins with our works anymore.
All glory & worship belong to God alone. Not to Mary, not to any saints, no one else.
Jesus' blood spiritually washes us clean of sins & makes us, in God's view, righteous & worthy of Heaven. Our spirits are righteous (thanks to God, not ourselves) although our flesh is not because we are all born in sin.
Any beliefs that contradict these are not Biblical & therefore not Christian.
>>3411>Feel free to argue with me
Not my intention to argue, but just to draw your attention to some Bible drawbacks regarding the ongoing subversion in the West.
Every you need to know about Hitler and Christian
THE 3RD REICH WAS POSITIVELY CHRISTIANhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/vLje4jADEIAF/https://www.bitchute.com/video/abaZDJMHmyg0/
THE SS AND THE TEUTONIC KNIGHTS AND THE BLACK SUNhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/DjsiBU1tDyWW/
ON HITLER'S TABLE TALK PART 1https://www.bitchute.com/video/5ZeuIJoW5llF/
ON HITLER'S TABLE TALKS PART 2https://www.bitchute.com/video/971Sa9Jo8Uyc/
HITLER'S CHRISTIAN GERMANY: THE TWELVE YEAR CHRISTIANDOMhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/NnzWSax8QAB8/
WAS HITLER A PAGAN? A RESPONSE TO CRITICShttps://www.bitchute.com/video/RRI82HqkOiJ2/
HITLERS SPEECH WE WILL DEFEND CHRISTIAN GERMANYhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/Q2UrPubBEYaH/
HITLER'S FAITH: A TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF MEIN KAMPFhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/ehaDzVw1U0lx/>>3496
Hitler actually talks about these quote in mein kampf here about it, it's the last video btw
The traditional Catholic Church vs the satanic jews.
The majority of people worship Satan, but don’t know it.
I apologize for my absence. There is really no excuse other than I kept putting it off. I hope you will still read through this and the coming little studies.
12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; 13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Here we read that the words given in this passage are from he which hath the sharp sword, which recalling from the previous part in chapter 1 will help make this meaning clear:
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Christ is saying, as the rest of the passage provides details of, that His word is the sword to combat the persecution which is going to befall the believers, which is already taking place as the letter is being written. The passage states they live where Satan's seat is and they did not deny Christ even when Antipas was killed for the faith.
I wanted to talk more about Antipas, but I could not find information that could agree, only traditional legend passed down and Catholic sainthood description, which states that he casted out demons that were being worshipped and was burned alive inside a statue of a bull. He is the Catholic patron saint of healing toothaches. A downgrade if you ask me. Seems like he should be much more important to the Catholic sainthood if he was mentioned by name in the Bible, but moving on. What is important is the place he was killed at. It was a religious center with many pagan temples and supposedly the site where an organized cult worship of the Roman Emperor was started. It would make sense that such a place would be the place Satan would like to dwell in, a place of confusion and sin.
And unfortunately, the church there did not avoid the sin as once again, they have the teachings of Baalam and the Nicolaitans in their congregation, committing fornication and sacrifices to idols. Jesus then gives more promises, that if they don't repent, He will fight against the teachers of these iniquities, but also if they overcome, they will be given hidden manna and a white stone with a new name. The manna refers to sustaining food the Israelites had in the wilderness, meaning God will sustain them even when there appears to be no possible way. The stone seems to be more debated on the meaning, some saying it is referring to the white pillar stones in front of the temple of Pergamos which have names of people healed by God, many others say it represents judged innocent, meaning you are not condemned. Another possibility is a reward for completing and athletic competition given in this era, which is thematically appropriate, especially to 2 Timothy 4:7
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
Whichever interpretation of the stone you believe fits best, the point is that for those that held the faith in the seat of Satan, they were given this stone, which no one knows but those that receive it. This name is likely the secret name of God hinted at in Revelation 19:12.
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Which means they will be close to the Lord, a relationship that no man on earth can fully comprehend. It also could mean their own name change, to symbolize the new creature you become once saved.
Hopefully I will be back on a more regular schedule after this massive absence. I once again apologize for it and hope to see you for the next portion of this brief study of Revelation.
Kied in a statue of a bull... isn't that a thing the Greeks did? They burned people alive in a bronze bull designed so that their screams would echo and sound like bull noises, right?
Glad to have you back.
>The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity>The theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the creation of new species is Satan’s most elegant and effective lie. No other scientific theory has done more in killing God and faith. When I first encountered the theory in high school, I accepted it without hesitation and quickly concluded that there must be no God, which removed any spiritual restraint for me to commit innumerable evils as an adult. All truth comes from God, and since evolution is a lie, any Christian who believes in it is most likely in a state of deception.https://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evolution-is-incompatible-with-christianity
>>3708>I accepted it without hesitation and quickly concluded that there must be no God, which removed any spiritual restraint for me to commit innumerable evils as an adult>if there is no god, then I have no personal obligation or stake in being a moral person, but you should totally listen to me now
It's another case of a reformed sinner preaching to the world.
Nevertheless, he's not wrong.
Is Christianity a theory?
>>3714>reee! U cant say things I dont like! Watch me posture with rage-implying CGI
Sorry, didnt mean to trigger you by saying something 'haram'. I forgot what tha Hadith says about infidels
Sorry anon but I believe you still don't get it.
It's not about to trigger a particular anon, but the holy duty to exact due justice on those opposing the Faith. After all, tolerance was the beginning of the current downhill.
"Christianity is a theory" is a theory to explain away why it exists without hurting your ego by thinking there might be something more to the universe than mass and matter, something holy and divine and just and true and worth fighting for.
Western civilization was founded on the marriage of God and Knowledge, yet God says to put God first because otherwise you'd commit atrocities in the name of knowledge.
Smug atheists love to believe they're special. So special, they believe they would continue to follow the christian values (or liberal values aka a bastardized weaponized hypocritical mockery of christian values) they were raised with even in a godless society where worship of the LORD isn't mandatory.
It's a shame most atheists aren't smart enough to understand why God set rules such as "Thou shalt not murder unjustly", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not want to bone thy neighbour's wife" and so on. In their desperation to feel superior to Christianity despite how little good atheism has done for the world compared to organized religion, they ignore the Muslims raping their nieces and nephews and try to piss off, attack, and otherwise harass Christians in a country where they aren't allowed to fight back.
Just a reminder about why we are in deep shit.
Spoken like a true muslim>>3718
Yes, but without conclusive evidence, its conjecture. Ergo, a theory. Definitively and conclusively.
>>3724>Yes, but without conclusive evidence, its conjecture. Ergo, a theory.
I would be under the assumption that at least most Christians would say they do indeed possess conclusive evidence of there being a God, that what's written in the New Testament is fact.>inb4 but they're wrong
Maybe. How would we know that?>inb4 historical evidence
And? We live in an age where informational integrity is the scarcest of resources. As well if you want to argue about it in the realm of philosophy, it the line does occasionally blur with theology, and there's been very smart people that have argued both ways. But if you would, please make a new thread about it so those that would like to study the messages of the Bible itself here, without questioning its origins, can do so in peace. In fact I could go ahead and make a philosophy thread myself if you like, I've been meaning to do so anyway. >>3708
is also invited.
For those interested, I've since gotten distracted from the Intro to the Critique of Pure Reason by Fight Club, but God willing, will get around to it eventually.>>3726 →
No, "ur conjecture" is an ad hominem.
>>3728>conjecture: Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument
I've done no such thing, and you're attempting to misrepresent my argument. If I were attacking anyone's character I would cast aspersions on RooshV. In any case, testimony is easily dismissive by a credible cross-examiner; there is no evidence of truth to the mythology of christianity that can pass objective criteria. Ergo, it is conjecture, aka a theory. But this anon >>3725
is right, I'll decline to take easy potshots ITT in future.
>>3727>Critique of Pure Reason
Nice title to entertain the intellect, however masonic illuminism is at odds with the Faith.
>>3729>mythology of christianity>more blasphemy
I offered to not belabor any points ITT. Dont make me reconsider. Byr now.
>>3730>Nice title to entertain the intellect
I'm assuming you haven't read it, because if you did, or at least the majority of the introduction like I have, you would know that this was the very thing he was trying to critique, reason giving the illusion of knowledge without the experience to determine whether or not it were sound, as in the title, "The Critique of Pure Reason."
I invite you to come talk about in the thread I've made, if you prefer. I know I would, so that anons could get back to study of the Bible. There was a good thread going here, hate to see it continue off the rails.
Glad to see everyone interested in this thread. I hope I can make it worth the attention.>>3705
The area talked about was Greek controlled, now located in Turkey. I can't confirm as I never heard of a Greek practice like this, but I haven't studied the topic of Greek religious customs. If they did, it was a Greek area, so it would make sense.>>3706
Thanks. I'm glad you have been sticking around even in my absence.>>3711https://youtu.be/O4GyijcVBGw>>3712
Probably the former, but at least it is opening up some discussion.>>3714>>3716
While tolerance is definitely something taught against, even in the verses I am covering now, where Jesus promises to destroy the churches that are tolerating heresies and corruption within, we must also have longsuffering towards those both within and without.
II Timothy 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away* their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Those that deny and those that become unfruitful should be dealt with in patience.>>3717
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
It is best to use the Word as your method of correction and not namecalling by yourself, as it just makes those that could listen turn away. I struggle with this as well, especially in the moment, but it would be best to keep calm and correct with the best corrective tool given to man, which is far more effective in the names it calls you, as it hits you with truth rather than human reasoning. For example, Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 say nearly the exact same thing, with only slight variation in the text, so I will take from Psalm 14
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
The reason this works is because it says the truth, that they that deny the existence of God, and further more, no one, seeks after God. They are corrupt and can't see Him even if He floated in front of them to see.>>3720
I will be sure to check out this thread. I haven't studied many thinkers in depth, but I will be interested to take a dive into it.>>3730
Nothing wrong with exploring some literary works and the thoughts of those that have come before, as long as you remember that the best of us are flawed and compare everything to the ultimate measure, the Word of God.>>3732https://youtu.be/19TBzy81Mac>>3734
Off the rails is much more engaging than block text of Scripture, as long as it returns to the focus, which I think will happen with another post or two of mine. I'm glad things got a bit off topic as it gave you the idea for a thread.
>>3734>I'm assuming you haven't read it,
I did when I was 19, it is NOT an easy book, it needs at least 3 re-reads to grasp it and draw conclusions from it. This is the reason why I prefer books like Candide by Voltaire, a superb novel if you ask.
Going back to our common matter: philosophy is like brain masturbation for the idle soul. Illuminism is the root of the West's decline.
>>3735>I will be sure to check out this thread. I haven't studied many thinkers in depth, but I will be interested to take a dive into it.
Hope to see you over there.>>3736
Okay pal. Hope you reconsider.
Based, I see what you did there. Or perhaps, what resulted of what you did. You're not wrong tho.
Wait, I have a legitimate question.
What does god say of Christians who engage in falsehood, duplicity, and disingenuously represent themselves? Like, is it okay for Christians to willfully lie and deceive? Even non believers? I thought that was only a muslim thing.
Do you think Christians should be the only people not allowed to lie
>>3743>totally not avoiding the question
But your question is gay. It makes no sense to bash christians when evil is raping your country. You can't prove that there is or is not a deity, that's why they call it "Faith". Faith that there could be more to the universe than meat and dirt. Smug atheist bullies love to suck muslim cock and bully christians to feel secure. You harass the patient in lands where they cannot kill you for it legally. It's a shame.
What the fuck.
The incomprehension at play here on both sides is mind boggling.
Well let's go check the books with a word search.
Because unlike most dune religions Christianity actually has multiple search engines.
Multiple posts incoming.
King James Version
34 I will bless the Lord at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.
2 My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.
3 O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.
4 I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.
5 They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed.
6 This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.
7 The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.
8 O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
9 O fear the Lord, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.
10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.
11 Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
12 What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good?
13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
15 The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.
16 The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
17 The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.
18 The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all.
20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
21 Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate.
22 The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.
King James Version
34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34 But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
King James Version
12 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.
King James Version
5 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
In order of Beatitudes. Compressed.https://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Beatitudes.html>An early contemplation on the Beatitudes came from St. Gregory of Nyssa, a mystic who lived in Cappadocia in Asia Minor around 380 AD. He described the Beatitudes this way:
>"Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good,
from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want.
Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us
if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."https://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Beatitudes.html>"Poor in spirit" means to be humble.>If we are humble and appreciate that all of our gifts and blessings come from God, we grow in love and gratitude for Jesus Christ our Savior. But this can only produce mourning and regret over our own sins and the sins of this world, for we have hurt the one who has been so good to us. One also mourns for the suffering of others.
St. Gregory describes another reason to mourn: the more one ascends in meditation of Divine Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, and then realize the poverty of human nature, man can only be left in sorrow. When one contemplates that we were made in the image and likeness of God and lived in Paradise, the Garden of Eden, and compare that to our present state after the Fall, one can only mourn our present condition. But the sentence continues that they shall be comforted, by the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and hopefully one day in the Kingdom of Heaven. Pray for the Fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Mourning in this context is called a blessing, because mourning our fallen nature creates in us a desire to improve ourselves and to do what is right!>A person that is meek is one that exhibits self-control.
. . .
Obedience and submission to the will of God are certainly not in vogue these days, but they will bring one peace in this world and in the next.>Justice and righteousness in the New Covenant indicate the fulfillment of God's will in your heart and soul. It is not mere observance of the law (Matthew 5:20), but rather an expression of brotherly love (I John 3:10). A continuous desire for justice and moral perfection will lead one to a fulfillment of that desire - a transition and conversion to holiness. This is true for all the virtues - if you hunger and thirst for temperance, you will head towards the goal you have in mind.>"Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36). Mercy is the loving disposition towards those who suffer distress.>Pope John Paul II wrote that the Beatitudes in a sense are a self-portrait of Christ! Moses (Exodus 33:20), John 1:18, and Paul (I Timothy 6:16) all say that no one can see God here on earth. God is hidden. But Jesus says the pure of heart shall see God! To be pure of heart means to be free of all selfish intentions and self-seeking desires. >Jesus gives us peace - "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you" (John 14:27). Peace is a Fruit of the Spirit. Peacemakers not only live peaceful lives but also try to bring peace and friendship to others, and to preserve peace between God and man. But one cannot give another what one does not possess oneself. Prayer will bring peace into your heart. The Lord wants you first to be filled with the blessings of peace and then to pass it on to those who have need of it. By imitating God's love of man, the peacemakers become children of God.>persecute>But the Lord promised those that suffer for his sake will be rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven!
To answer you no. To lie is a sin.
do so, and pray for forgiveness. Or something.
Actually in better words you gotta go ask Jesus or God or an Angel.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.>>3742
Mudslimes lie to extract the weakness so they may kill them easier.
Jews entire books is about lies and word games, all the time.
Both say to enslave the goyim, aka animals, which means you. Slaughtering animals for them is a fine and a slap on the wrist for destroying property.
Needless to say, that's bad.>>3748
Yes, you can prove it. Faith is KNOWING and there is ZERO DOUBT.>t. occultist
>>3748>you cant prove
Precisely. And yet, all this posturing
I know, right? All this posturing from you godless soulless worthless atheist+ cocksuckers who can't fucking stand the idea that a functional society might need soft rules like "No sucking dicks or else you're disgusting" and "Slutty femalea are scum" in addition to hard rules like "pedophiles belong in jail". You're so desperate to view christianity as a silly and backwards infringement upon your personal freedoms, you'll deny its necessary societal role even if it means aiding and abetting invasive conquerors. If all atheists were exported to muslim nations, they'd get on their knees and beg for forgiveness and swear they'll never shit-talk people more righteous than them again.
I'm going to slap a bitch.>All this posturing from you godless soulless worthless
I have my soul, I have seen your gods, I know exactly what I'm getting into and out of. So kindly fuck off and listen to your books and saints so you'll be a better person.>If all atheists were exported to muslim nations, they'd get on their knees and beg for forgiveness and swear they'll never shit-talk people more righteous than them again.
I'm going to assume you also mean any other religion as well. Let me tell you. Hell hath no fury like a righteous man scorned. Ten years tops they'll be overturned and dashed to the wind forevermore.
Then you'll try to stick your dick in to 'save' the heretics. It's your god given laws.>>3758
Remember ((())) is the first and foremost enemy of everything on and beyond Earth, no matter their size or shape.
Guess who offers up their children to (((them)))? Is option D all of the above, because few people get that offering up your child (can also be metaphorical) for defilement is also your own slavery.
>>3759>>3760>I have seen your gods
You've seen your own delusions>((()))
I'm not the one who implied mass impaling was the correct response to questioning your so unquestionable beliefs. Ngl, but 'the enemy of my enemy dies second' comes to mind, but not to do with my
mentality. That was (you) lot. >I have a soul
Oh? Quantify it. Present it. Make evidence of it, other than conjecture (no, what 'the Bible says' is not evidence, btw). This 'knowing', how can you validate it but to state that you 'know'? How do you qualify this 'knowledge'? What litmus tests can it pass? Is there any actual evidence beyond your assertion, and some biased and circumstantial assertions?
>>3761>what 'the Bible says' is not evidence,
I'm an occultist, doing spooky woo-woo shit. So what kind of evidence do you want?
As in I (my, myself and I. Which is my soul) could go about doing paranormal stuff if you want. Mind you that just and 'only' 'proves' the paranormal not necessarily that it's my soul or the simulation of sensations is the 'real thing'.
Which as always could be chalked up to a mere coincidence.
Then again you could do a summoning for the part of my soul that's on call for various shenanigans.<Why post those verses though?
Doing things the right way is important. By which the demonstration is suitable for the time and place. If someone is desperate to go do whatever I'd like for them to at least do things in a way that is good and true. If their going to be a Christian they better well do it with excellence so they'll be a marvel to witness at the very least, maybe they'll do some good too.
Why do atheists have so much anger towards the idea that they might be the ones who need to disprove the evidence of God, when they have already made up their mind on the lack of any God?
Do Atheists not see the societal value of religion and its role in shaping societal values for the better? Do they not think that's worth going to church and pretending to praise the lord (or just shutting the fuck up for 10 minutes) instead of dedicating their lives to hounding and bullying and persecuting Christians however they can, no matter where they are found?
If you're reading this you've probably been fucked over by a Jew at least once. If you're reading this you or someone you know has probably been fucked over by a Muslim at least once.
You've seen for yourself how effortlessly the atheist community was pozzed and turned into feminist jewish "atheist+" bullshit. That's what happens when you lack a religious grounding for your morals during your formative years. Adults who say "I'm moral now so I don't need Jesus" aren't really adults, they're toddlers who deny the role living in a somewhat-Christian society during their formative years had on their lives and morality.
If your going to be serious you need to be serious about this. Being a Christian is no joke. It's serious, that does mean you can fun as per the gifts that God bestows.
This details the corruption and degeneration of peoples everywhere from the spiritual point of view. It lines up perfectly with our (or at least my) (((enemies))).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDjy_K9--Ls
A primary preliminary for proper reading. I only found out, about 30 ish minutes ago.
>>3763>Why do godfags have so much anger towards the idea that they might be the ones who need to prove the evidence of God, when they have already made up their mind on the presence of any God?>Do Christians not see the societal value of individual sovereignty and its role in shaping societal values for the better? Do they not think that's worth doing the work and endeavoring to raise their standards (or just shutting the fuck up for 10 minutes) instead of dedicating their lives to hounding and bullying and persecuting pagans however they can, no matter where they are found?>If you're reading this you've probably been fucked over by a Jew at least once. If you're reading this you or someone you know has probably been fucked over by a Muslim at least once.>You've seen for yourself how effortlessly the Christian community was pozzed and turned into feminist jewish "Christian+" bullshit. That's what happens when you lack a cohesive grounding for your morals during your formative years. Adults who say "I'm moral now so I don't need Emergence" aren't really adults, they're toddlers who deny the role living in a somewhat-society during their formative years had on their lives and morality.
Admissible evidence would be a good start
>>3769>asking for evidence and exposing bullshit rhetoric is shilling
Fuck off thrall
>>3771>asking for evidence and exposing bullshit rhetoric is shilling
Well, your purpose is not to look for evidence evidence but to subvert Christians, after all you already made your mind.
>>3772>you're not looking for evidence!
I'm literally asking for it>trying to subvert Christians!
You sound just like the SPLC when defending 'poor oppressed jews' against those pesky antisemites. Label me all you want, your arguments are horseshit, else you'd have responded to this >>3762
Are you considering that your world view is only fixed on the material world anon?
Perhaps that's the reason "Faith" is alien to you.
By the way, it is noteworthy how endless beings like you pick on Christians, but would never do the same on jews or muslims. Why it would be?
Faith is conjectural. There is no objectivity to faith hence it is spurious
. Refute that.And please, show me the proselytizing muslims on mlpol, I'll be glad to give them a riw
Let me to derail you to the other side to the same coin >>>/vx/98688 →
Perhaps you may be more willing to accept the spiritual world when the dark side faces to you.
Also take a peak to >>3633
It is top notch stuff.
So it bothers you that Christians speak here, on this website in particular?
>>3776>Perhaps you may be more willing to accept the spiritual world when the dark side faces to you.
>all this deflection>>3776>>3777
Completely immaterial. Golly misters, it's almost like when you cant defeat my argument you have to resort to rhetoric and evasion. (((Who))) does that sound like? But then Christianity IS a branch of the same tree as judaism so it's no small wonder.>dark side faces you
Faith is no excuse for fear anon. If a man cant face the darkness of the world (and himself) with his own autonomy and integrity without resorting to
theoretical stories, he has no business attempting to sell his weakness to others under the dubious pretense of spreading auspices. Pious fraud is still fraud, even if its orator believes it entirely.
>>3775>Faith is conjectural>a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing>reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence>to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds
That's completely and utterly false if anyone has faith. Not the hogwash that's been peddled for ages where someone kinda sorta believes, that can be a stepping stone, maybe.
You can have faith that the Natural Law is in effect. So gravity, it is certain, while gravity can get really weird and bizarre.
Even more concretely a circle is a circle, or a square is a square. And 3 plus 2 is 5.Such is the science of the not quite material world(s).
That's faith (at least in a meaningful sense) that what is known is true and has no doubt, because it's True and there is Zero Doubt.<The current issue is explaining why it's true and why there is zero doubt.>>3768
So I've said what kind of evidence do you want. When and where? Ect.>>3769>>3771>>3772>>3774>>3776>>3777>>3779
There is one job is to provide explanation in such a way. Don't play footsy the heart of the matter lies in exploring deeper, because alot of people with highly refined grace and virtue have thought about it. Doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean it's been thought about. In such a way that learning from those techniques alone is useful.>>3780
They understand that their wisdom comes from the fear of god. And the counter offer of application how to live well and good in all lives. That the blindness of man make comprehending such mysteries can only be done through the intellect that is holy. At least in such of that belief.
So I won't steal their stage.
I already told you, admissible evidence would be a good start. Or how about empirical evidence? A square has very clearly defined and measurable attributes, namely 4 equal length sides and 4 90 degree angles. A circle is very clearly defined with measurable attributes, consisting of a constant curvature, and a consistent radius. It's plainly evident and measurable, should the individual wish to test the findings; faith doesnt apply.>Truth and Zero doubt
Truth is not subjective and the absence of doubt is not evidence of truth. Absence of doubt is a result of EITHER comprehension of empirical evidence OR personal (authoritarian) conviction. Plenty of people have no doubt that the earth is flat. Plenty of people have no doubt that magical niggers can steal penises with curses. Absence of doubt does not meet any objective requirements for evidence, and the attempt to suggest otherwise is flaccid at best.
>>3784>I already told you, admissible evidence would be a good start.
Based upon what criterion? Who's to say what's admissible and what's not?>Or how about empirical evidence? A square has very clearly defined and measurable attributes, namely 4 equal length sides and 4 90 degree angles. A circle is very clearly defined with measurable attributes, consisting of a constant curvature, and a consistent radius. It's plainly evident and measurable, should the individual wish to test the findings; faith doesnt apply.
That's not what's called empirical evidence. IIRC that's geometrical knowledge based upon mathematical proofs that themselves rest on agreed upon axioms of mathematics and logic.>Truth is not subjective and the absence of doubt is not evidence of truth. Absence of doubt is a result of EITHER comprehension of empirical evidence OR personal (authoritarian) conviction.
A bold set of claims. Can you prove them?>Plenty of people have no doubt that the earth is flat. Plenty of people have no doubt that magical niggers can steal penises with curses.
Who's to say it's not, and that they don't? All that evidence, what if it's just an illusion? What if someone told you something that was untrue? What if your senses and faculties are failing you? What if it's all just a simulation, and the real world is beyond our comprehension?>Absence of doubt does not meet any objective requirements for evidence
As in a deductive proof? Seems we're a long way from that, friend. Besides, people don't change their minds based upon intellect as a general rule, that's been proven via empirical methods. It's really got more to do with intuition and how someone feels. Anything else and people just start to talk past one another. See picrelated if you would like to read up more.>and the attempt to suggest otherwise is flaccid at best.
Sincerely, would you rather it be hard?
Right that's why Faith is Truth AND Zero Doubt. Two separate categories. In one.
Now time for an experiment because if I just provide my findings that wouldn't be sufficient. The process though can have different means, so ceremonial is technically close but lacks the heart of the matter and isn't even the point...
Okay how about this>if the order of seemingly inane movements of body, physical stuffs, (or spiritual stuffs), care, and thought are done in the correct way, then a repeatable result will be resulted barring outside influences or unaccounted factors.>>>/vx/98688 →
Like all science you'll want saftey procedures first and for most. Or wing it like inventors... but the chance of something going horribly wrong increases alot. Having somesome who knows what they're doing would be good to have on standby, obtaining such help may take time.
If the safety (is too stifling it might not happen, if it could it would when all conditions are met. When ever and where ever.) and prerequisite materials and previous necessities are not there, that would make obtaining the desired truthful result difficult.
Such as using the large Hadron Collider, but using your body to catch the incredibly fast subatomic particles. You might be fine someone did that before.
So the means of detection is you, and something else material. Spiritual sense can be aquired or used as well.>>>/vx/131622 →
My assertion is that I've seen my soul, and that you could summon a fraction of mine so you have evidence.
More importantly you have your soul.
So safety procedures.
Clean and clear work area.
Magic (or prayer, or will whatever) is the metaphorical paper.
The steps to be taken ready.
You do the thing.
Was the hypothesis sufficient? Did you find something new or previously unknown?
Now that you have a proverbial piece of paper and it's just sitting there
doing nothing. You have to put it into action or just watch it.
Such as poking it (to determine various qualities and quantities), or fold it into a paper air plane.
Folding a terrible quality paper airplane would be pretty disappointing. If your going to be just poking the paper and examining it that'll be quite interesting. If you easily push it about and say it's not really there because it offers no resistance is a falsehood. If you can't detect it's being pushed about then you may have a problem or everything is going as expected.
So instead of paper per se, one might choose to have a significantly weighted object to poke and prod.
While this doesn't seem all that scientific this is more of the discovery phase. To determine the existence even if that is still up for debate at this stage.
Then one can go do stuff. Which is based on personal experiments, finding other's notes on their experiments, and importantly seeing it in action (or not) around you.
Remember safety and awareness, know the risks and what is possible.
Effective way to remove (if god commands them to stay, at least it'll irritate them) diabolic influence and to order yourself.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afgtx1r5xVo
'Member it ain't 'magic' it's God's command.
The whole point I'm even going this far, besides personal interest and insights in this kind of material, is that there are hostile forces and I'd quite like for friens to be safe and sound.
Demon worshippers are faggots
>>3787>Faith and Zero Doubt
So, faith (conviction) and zero doubt (conviction). Congratulations, that's rationalized conviction. Conviction is not an argument, nor is it evidence of truth. Evidence doesnt require faith or interpretation, evidence is evident, hence the term. Thanks for the (you)s, but if evidence is insufficient to made evident a particular thing to a person who is not
pre-conditioned/predisposed to an idea, then it's simply authoritarianism.
While I'm not an atheist (atheists are just as convicted to their ideology as you lot), this video will help to articulate some of the issues with trying to argue rhetorically (because if you're not using evidence, and your conclusions are based on interpretation, its rhetoric) when the opponent is arguing logically.Not all my arguments are logical, but my insistence that if the Bible (not exclusively) is true, there will be evidence to support the conclusion IShttps://youtu.be/hprmo3CifJ0
Still looking for an angle. Huh?
No, I'm looking for evidence
I would suppose there's none to be given, mate. A middle ground just doesn't appear to be present here.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
>>3798>faith is evidence>hebrews
I'm not one of them. Signing with them up is a one trip to hell and ensuring the devil is the ruler of the world, where they empower malicious spirits. Fuck that.>>Faith and Zero Doubt>Faith is Truth AND Zero Doubt
Most have no doubt, and not the truth as it's whole.
Faith is having no doubt about the truth. Fine faith is a charged word with misconceptions.
Wumbo is having Zero Doubt about Truth. That means there may be some truths out there still clouded in doubt, but that can be cleared away.
That also means having only zero doubt means irregardless of the truth or not, it doesn't matter.
Having Wumbo means Truth is known completely and totally in such a way the existence of doubt is nil.
The only reason why Wumbo is important is so you can make decisions that are wise, powerful, exact, and meaningful.>>3796
I'm saying you could perform a series of actions that you can prove.
It's like the kid in school telling classmates of a tall tale in a video game. They'll say that's bs because it's just some guy saying so. So they can go back and check it out on their own game to see if it's a fib.>>3798
Guess it's just Wumbo for me.
>>3801>I'm not one of them
I apologie for the mistake.>Faith is Truth AND Zero Doubt
The point of my statement was to emphasize that absent evidence, it's simply asserting a pre-determined conviction. To wit, the statement should read:
Conviction is theory and conviction. That is a true statement, but it doesnt validate the theory at all, and posturing as though it does is putting the cart before the horse.
Why do the "I won't literally believe in God until he comes down to me specifically and tells me to get my act together!" guys take things literally only when it suits them?
If you're looking at things rationally you'll note the societal benefits of religion. You'll notice damn near everything bad about religion can be blamed on the corrupt heads of organized religious churches, corrupt priests reinterpreting their religion to say whatever they want, and jews subverting the faith.
Christianity's only bad when it isn't done properly.
Can any other religion say the same?
Can any other religion call itself helpful to society with a straight face and honest heart?
This is why so many atheists fall back on repeating the stanzas and verses of their annoying theme song "Hurr durr sky fairy, hurr durr Family Guy and Simpsons is right about christianity, imagine worshipping an invisible man in the sky when you have no proof he exists, I'm such an enlightened skeptic unlike you". They have to repeat something not worth saying and focus on what makes them feel correct and morally right, so they can ignore how stupid bullying a religion for lacking proof is. It's like mocking a car for not flying. They aren't fucking supposed to, smartass. If you want to view the world through a rationalist lens, look at the purpose of a tool to understand why it was crafted. If you believe Mormonism and Scientology and Christianity each come from some mortal faggots who wrote books once, ask yourself what the creators of these proto-ideologies wanted to accomplish. The muslims wanted to motivate fellow muslims to rape and murder for islam. The scientologists want money and power. But Christianity? Think carefully on why Christianity was invented and if your answer is "because straight white male wanted to control women and society's sexuality" you aren't thinking hard enough because jews eyefucked you so hard in high school you ended up with brain damage. Feminists aren't people. Christianity was right about women.
Understand the purpose of a religion before you mindlessly bash it for being a religion.
When Muslims bomb and when Jews lie they're doing their religion properly. When the Yogafags are stretching or fucking or starving themselves or meditating atop corpses they're doing their religion properly. When crystalfags worship their woo-woo hippy new-age boomer shit like hypnosis and """energy""" (that's literally just The Force from Star Wars) or purchase overpriced supposedly-magical chakra healing crystals they're doing their religion properly.
Christianity helped the West achieve such incredible heights. Everything good about western civilization needed to be destroyed through successive generations of brainwashing and jewish infiltration before our society became the shitshow it is today. The peaks western civilization reached are unmatched around the world. Indians can't into space. Muslims can't invent anything besides dynamite vests and lies. Blacks lack culture and IQ. If all whites decided all religions are gay and there is no reason not to toss Jesus statues off cliffs and act like niggers, what would that do to the world?
News flash: Whenever Star Trek or Family Guy or Doctor Who shows you a better world with flying cars and no religion, a diverse multicultural commie paradise without money where everything is great, it's jews lying to you. That Family Guy scene where they go to Quahog except years more advanced because religion never existed? Chinese children in sweatshops animated those scenes. Faggots voice-acted those scenes. If you base your worldview on Family Guy and Star Trek and Doctor Who and The Big Bang Theory I don't want to know you and I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved.
Now THAT is ad hominem and strawmanning
Christianity is not reality-based belief, it sows confusion and sickness in Aryan minds. It was crafted by the Jews, for Jewish benefit, for goyim consumption. It harms my race and we don't need it to excel. Leave Jesus to the Jews.
Aryans will worship Aryan deity!
>>3803>I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved
Ok, now you stepped over the line of insult to heresy.>>3805
Welcome to the Bible study thread. You are welcome to read along. We are currently going over Revelation part by part to better understand the Scripture. I will do my best to answer any questions along the way. I am no scholar, but I do enjoy studying.
Another passage soon. I am typing it up now.
>>3803>"I won't literally believe in God until he comes down to me specifically and tells me to get my act together!"
I know you were making fun of some people's position, but this is more or less how monergistic sects of Christianity, like the Reformed Tradition, believe that Human faith works.>Christianity's only bad when it isn't done properly.
Not to disagree, but the way this is worded sounds like No True Scotsman. That doesn't make it wrong, but it needs much more explaining>how stupid bullying a religion for lacking proof is
I think asking what "proof" is desired and using arguments for the existence of God or the historicity of Jesus may be more fruitful.>Blacks lack culture and IQ
Ethiopia is one of the oldest Christian nations and cultures on the planet, perhaps only Armenia has been Christian for longer. An Ethiopian Eunuch and his conversion is mentioned in Acts 8.>Star Trek... shows you a better world with flying cars and no religion
At least the Original Series of Star Trek is not Atheistic. In the episode "Who Mourns for Adonias?" after a supposed "Greek god" demands that Kirk worship him and the other supposed greek gods, Kirk replies with "We're fine with just the one," implying Kirk believes in the Christian God, or something similar.>I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved.
To insinuate that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to save is pretty clearly heretical to the Christian faith.
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. 26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
This one is a bit more involved than the others. I will attempt to break it down. It opens with Jesus describing Himself as eyes of flame and feet of brass. This appears to be symbolizing light, both that Jesus emits it and He guides with it. His feet in the previous chapter were a glowing bronze, which I think means that his path is always lit. He can see where to go, and if you follow him, you cannot be lost.
Verse 19 causes quite a bit of confusion, leading most other translations to alter the phrasing because people get tripped over it so much. The verse repeats works twice, which is likely to emphasize that they do lots of works, and the verse ends with "and the last to be more than the first". Some translations put this as saying that the works they do now are much more than when they started. Though this makes sense, as it shows that they have not grown complacent in using their time in service to God. I personally disagree with this translation. I believe it to mean that the last of the people are made more than the first, as in what Jesus taught in Matthew 20:
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever* will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
In other words, I think the verse is trying to say they work so much that the first among them are serving the least among them. I might be incorrect, but I think it makes more sense in relation to all things listed, and the last typically isn't used to describe the present.
Continuing on, we learn this church is allowing a woman that proclaims to be a prophetess. She teaches fornication as well as seduces the church members, as well as takes part in idol worship. God put up with it for a time, but, as the verses indicates, no longer. He sends her and those that are led away into a bed and they will suffer tribulation. I am thinking this might be some sort of disease, but it is not stated precisely. Her children will die with, as the verse says, death, which likely means they will die with no real explanation, leaving people to realize it is God's punishment for leading so many astray, that likely brought these children into the world.
The passage moves on to what is to happen to the rest that don't fall into Satan's devices, which is no extra burden. God will keep them if they follow his word and live by his example, putting themselves last. Those that are last, God will make first in His kingdom, which is why they are given power over the nations. They will rule with a rod of iron and will break the nations as clay pots into shivers, or the modern word most likely is, slivers. We we will come to learn, the nations are by no means blameless during the end of days.
The passage ends on one final promise. God will give them the morning star. I have pondered what this means a great deal, but I think it refers to the beginning of the passage as well as the end of this book. Revelation 22:
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Jesus is the morning star and will provide light and guidance. You can't miss Him, as His light shines above the rest. Finally, he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Heed the words and follow the correction God gave to the churches and you will avoid destruction. Blessing may not come in this world, but they will be given in time. Our fight isn't to gain favor, but to bring glory to God in all that we do, as a witness to Him and all He has done for us.
Next time, we start chapter 3. More churches to go through and learn from. These next ones, at least in my opinion, hit harder as we come across a dead church, a faithful church, and a church that reflects us most closely, one that disgusts the Lord. And from there, things only get more interesting. I hope you will join this study and share your thoughts about the Scripture.
Christians worship a jewish god.
>>3805>Leave Jesus to the Jews.
Actually Jews hate Jesus because called them out on their wicked ways.>>3810
It's not working. Try again shill.
For practical purposes, Christ's magic works wonders over jewish's witchcraft. So any call to drop the Christian shield is nonsense.
>They Dont Want You to Know These 17 Church Facts!
>These are never mentioned! A country is dead when the one institution that was the back bone is now gone into the hands of the devil's children. Churches literally preach that Bankers, Murderers, rapists, thieves, Liars, cons, Preachers, politicians, Media moguls, Teachers, and all purveyors of evil can no longer be Incarcerated, or criticized for their Lies and evil behavior!
Churches operate like a business and the IRS has the last word on what's preached.
I just read the post >>>/mlpol/309063 →
about an old school priest blasting degeneracy and going off script, then researching moar I found: >Fr. Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period. (Part I)>Father James Altman calls out the hypocrisies of Church hierarchy and their destructive leftist politicization of the Catholic Church that has slapped faithful Catholics in the face and led many others astray. Altman also explains the basis of human nature and our purpose in life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM
Mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/bj28dNkmaORD/>Fr. Altman: Liberal Catholics are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing (Part II)>Part II - Fr. James Altman doubles down in his widely anticipated follow up to the viral video "You Cannot Be Catholic & a Democrat" - which he maintains is the simple truth and a no-brainer statement. Altman discusses the "great tragedy" of the Church, and left-wing cancel culture - the bullying and socialist tactics used in opposition to him and other faithful Catholics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVt10eZMN1M>Fr. Altman: Progressives = Socialists = Communists (Part III)>Father James Altman discusses 167 years of warnings from the last TEN popes about the evils of socialism, and how the US is under relentless attack by socialists NOW who openly operate in our country under sweet-sounding names like liberty, justice, love, & equality - "nothing more than adjectives for human exaltation ... man-made 'rights.'"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTasrnpbMpg
Jews hate Jesus because Christian creed is detrimental to the existence of Race, and jews value their race. I.e. the Jew hates the Christ to not swallow his own poison – Christianity.>>3812
Christ sacrifice literally was Jewish blood sacrifice ritual. Jews sacrificed animals to purify from sins and jew again, which lasted for a year. But Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, the blood of "divine being" was expected to bring eternal freedom from sin. Jesus was that goat upon which sins are ascribed, except he was fictional and had "divine blood". Also, he had royal Jewish blood from king David lineage, per his character sheet.
So, you're claiming that your deity Jesus is anathema of the Jews, yet he was of the Jews blood, soul and also benefited Jews. I hate you.
>>3820>Christ sacrifice literally was Jewish blood sacrifice ritual.
The sacrifice ritual is present way before jews and prevalent among ancient cultures. It is the magical mechanism of how this realm works. We material beings are part of the food chain.
It's both.>It is the magical mechanism of how this realm works.
No, that's how bribery and essentially how the magical mafia works.>We material beings are part of the food chain.
Your point being?
I should have clarified. I'm disagreeing with your proposition and implications.
There is a commodity and resources in humanity that all sorts of beings desperately covet.
In honest, kind, and fair transactions I could (and I am) freely associate and reciprocate with generosity.
So flip the table over turn the unjust rulings and be the better man in every aspect as an Übermench in continual improvement. Do what needs and ought to be done. There is always a way.
New memetic structure has been formed i suggest you check
if you wanna understand the whole "beast magic" and inner workings (mostly of ""sin"") https://memeanalysis.com/mythhttps://memeanalysis.com/conspiracy>a lot there
Meme Analysis dude is a lefty and an occultist. I watched some of his stuff it's not perfect, but it's good enough to be somewhat effective.
His apolitical analysis is for his background and experience not bad. It could be considered good except for the limited reality he's surrounded by.
So he's not quite wrong, but he's not quite right and that's the big problem.
The archetypes and myths he's pulling from are dangerous and is a very real threat. The issue is interpretation and it's a blend of truth and warped reality perceptions.
For a quick guide it's deadly much akin to (((hidden hand))) operations. It's good enough, truthful enough, and quick.
It makes perfect complete sense if you're on the (((right side of history))) assholes.
In that it's dangerous in real life that the world is shifting away from reality and perceptions. But it'll explain away 'the enemy'.
The biggest problem as I've said it's not complete and doesn't have a gestalt of the whole picture.>pic of iceberg meme
That's the sad part is that
one must be in sound mind and spirit and body to use the work for its unintended value. A damned (as in will definitely fuck you over of it can) guide that for all intents and purposes is just temping enough. Because there is real value to be gained and learned.
It's incomplete. It offers no direct solutions. What it does do is make a map and checklist.
Then the devil is in the details, inbetween the lines.
As a point of self reflection it's still a poisoned withering double edged sword.
Good work on the website. Could be better, but frankly for its (creator's) intended purpose it's enough.
Be aware, be self reflective and ensure you keep track of what is going into your mind. And if anything is going on.>New memetic structure has been formed i suggest you check
if you wanna understand the whole "beast magic" and inner workings (mostly of ""sin"")
That's a proto memetic structure. The ""sin""
are for all intents and purposes is better expressed in other means and waters down the goings on around the world, and nearby.
For non-copy right infringement 'myth' it's just not complete.
The fullness of the topics is lacking which lead to its detriment. It could be much more.
As it is it demands attention itself and energy.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus' death did not benefit the Jews in the way you suggest, as it would be the end of their order, their control, as they would have to give it all over to Him and be co-owners of eternal life with all who believe. This is something they could never accept, which is part of the reason they could not allow His message proceed, as it would destroy their religious order of control of who rises in society and who is barred from religious services, making profit of the worship of God, something Christ drove them out for.
However, you claim this means that there can be no race and Christianity is a poison for giving allowance for all who believe to be saved. So I will assume that your own religion or lack there of my never be shared with anyone outside your race, or this would be a massive flaw in your logic, as the Bible has many verses for both cooperation of races and at the same time, division and identity, such as God commanding that man separate and not form a unified singular nation under Babel, not allowing people to infiltrate, to be in the world and not of the world, to serve and to not bring in more than two tongues in a single church.
Your misunderstanding of what Christianity is by media and manipulation of ages of corruption, which is certainly something that we must correct, for the standard representative of what a Christian is these days is nothing that stands apart from the globalist horde. Regardless, I think you likely know your argument is built on particularly little but the actions of the mindless masses that claim ownership of something they don't even understand.
I hope you join our journey through Revelation. I'm sure we will find all sorts of interesting things as we go. As for your hate, I hope by the end, you might turn that around to where it should be, the ones that wish us all dead and bound to the corrupting forces of this world.
>>3829>The Prophesy of Sajara
I believe that is related to the pagan Kali Yuga which is related to The Bible's Revelations.
Sorry the off topic OP.
I have no idea what this Prophecy of Sajaha is or what it is referring to with Sargon. It looks to contain some wordings used in Revelation, but it is not part of the canon of the Bible. Though you may still gain some use from extra-biblical texts, they are not inspired and may contain anywhere from flaws to lies to heresy. Best be careful.
Already I can see one direct contradiction from the provided text. It states that the bodies of the dead will be piled into pyramids and burned, which is not what the Bible states.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
The slain will be devoured by birds. Whatever this text is, it clearly is only inspired by reading end time prophecies and not the direct inspiration of God.>>3830
Most likely this. I need to look into more pagan tradition and religion as often it has at least a touch of familiarity, having branched off of or assimilated biblical information.
1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Here we begin with the church that is dead, but has a name that they are alive. This most likely refers to that they were known for being an upstanding church or at least had a reputation in the community, or even that they just claimed the name of a body of believers that they were never really modeled after, but now that name for themselves is all they have. Being dead here means to be apart from God, that they don't have anything really to do with God at all, being more of the world and the religions around them. God commands them to keep the few things about them that do remain around God before they are dead as well, for their works aren't perfect, complete and righteous unto God.
Jesus then reminds of the theme He continuously brings up. His return is as a thief in the night. You have no way of ever knowing today is the day you are robbed. It happens at night, when you are tired. It happens when it is most likely to surprise you, when you think everything is normal. Jesus makes this analogy many times, which reinforces that it is to be understood and emphasized.
Even with the church falling apart, Jesus mentions that there are still a few there that are not corrupted. They that overcome will be clothed in white, showing that they are made pure by the mercy of God, and their names will not be blotted out of the book of life, instead they are confessed to God that they are forgiven. And here comes the research on what this means.
Does having your name blotted out mean that someone can lose salvation through being dead in Christ? This will spoil a couple things we will get into later in Revelation, but it is important to understand this now rather than to be confused for months before I get around to covering it. I have a couple of references in Scripture to prove losing salvation is not the case, so let's begin. First order of business is what is this book of life? It is the book that contains all the names of everyone that may live, not to be cast into the lake of fire.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
It says according to their works still, so could that mean that someone could be good and make it in the book or be bad and be left out? Let's explore more to find out. How does one not get in the book? Anyone that sins is removed from the book.
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin-; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
We learn from here that God will blot your name out if you sin. You also can't barter with God to trade a human life for a life. As we know, it takes the divine trade of Jesus to do that.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What* fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
But how come doing good things isn't enough? What if you never sin?
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. 5 Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. 7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.
Following the law does no good, as it's purpose was to reveal your sin. For all the works that you may do in the name of righteousness, it is as filthy rags. No one can save themselves. All have sinned. But if all have sinned, how come there are names on the book that are blotted out?
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
These verses reveal that the world might be saved, meaning that all the people in the world are written in the book. Those that sin will have their names blotted out, and the works of their life judged for they are recorded in the books around Jesus. Those works, as we learned, no matter how great, are still tainted by sin, and thus all who are not found in the book, as they are blotted out by sin, will be cast into the lake of fire. That means all of us are destined for that fate if it wasn't for Jesus, who died in our place and rose from the dead. He confesses our names to God to not be blot out, that we are spared from our fate.
I believe that sums up the book of life pretty well. The final note would be, how can a church be dead? It is filled with those in sin and unbelievers. We reach the verse that splits a lot of people up, but it is important to understand how a church is dead.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This verse clearly lines out that faith alone can't save you, which would render everything I posted null and void without understanding what the passage means. We already established that what we do is evil to God, but what God commands you to do is what makes your faith perfect, complete as it is meant to be. If Abraham told God, yep, I believe you, but I'm not going up that mountain to kill my kid, then what use is that faith? When you believe the Word of God, your life is changed. We go back to what is a work, which is your life, what you do, not just a specific kind of deed. Giving to charity does not save you, but a person that claims to be Christian that is never charitible is likely not saved at all, as is revealed to us through Scripture.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
The Holy Spirit compells you to do good works, to live right with God, and to hate the fruit of the world. You are dead if you have no works. You just know the name of God, and you aren't His own. You are as the false preachers, that know all about God, they likely even believe He exists, but they aren't saved.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot* bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them*, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This ties back to the devils, or demons, James mentions, that believe in Jesus, yet aren't saved. Salvation is something only you and God can know between yourselves. You know if you are saved if you believed in the Lord. Nothing you do can save you from your fate. After salvation, your heart is changed.
4 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Therefore, if you are saved, you will obey God. You will still sin in this body, as I can testify to. You will never be perfect as all you are is still flesh, still tied to the world, still tempted by the devil. But you will also now have the fruit of the spirit, you can pray to God for wisdom, understanding, and help to show yourself more fruitful, to make your works perfect in Him. In essence, your faith allows you to do works which makes your faith perfect. Again, there is no measure of what works to do, because that isn't what the verse is saying. You don't do x good things to please God, you simply believe and do what God commands, the good works are set out in the Bible, the fruit of the spirit. That is what keeps you and the body of Christ alive.
That was a longer one, but I feel like that was a great look at everything you can learn from just a short passage.
Glad to have you back.
something I thought of from this discussion; God is very patient with us and holds off on punishment and judgement, in order to win us over to repentance and obedience.
Also it's super neat how God writes His ways into our hearts as we walk with Him more and more. It really is Jesus changing us when it's deeply rooted sins which He helps us overcome. Always keep fighting and know that it's ok to mess up a lot, as long as you're fighting to move forward. The righteous man falls seven times and rises again.
I am going through some struggles right now with a family member. If you keep him in your prayers, that would be very kind right now.
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Here we find Jesus talking to the church in Philadelphia. The name comes from the root of love as one has for a brother, making it a fitting name for a church that is faithful unto God. He says what He opens, no man can shut, and what He shuts, no man can open. The immediate parallel most make is opportunity opening and closing, but it is much more than that. It is all events in the world. Nothing happens that catches God off guard because He opened the way and closes anything that may not be. Here we see that the works of the church are known and so God opens up something that can not be undone by any force of the world. For they had a little strength and had not denied God, He set up for them a great mission. The synagogue of Satan will come and worship before them, for they will understand that the love of God is with the church and not themselves.
The reward for keeping the faith is being kept from the hour of temptation, that tries them that dwell on the earth. This refers to what the rest of Revelation will cover, the rise of the antichrist, who tempts the world into worship of the dragon, Satan. They will have no part in the coming disaster. Just like the previous church, they are instructed to hold on to what they have. To those that overcome, they are made the pillar in the temple of God, meaning they are what hold it up, and they won't leave it. They will also have the name of God written on them, which is the counter to the antichrist, which will have his name or his number written on those that serve him. Jesus then reveals what will be covered in more detail at the end of the book, New Jerusalem. Finally, Jesus reveals that they will also bear His new name, which also will be covered towards the end of the book.
I must apologize for the quality of this post. I might return to it later with more references and Scripture to back up different lessons you can take from this passage, but I couldn't get it all worded just right this time, so I omitted it for now. Perhaps I will have a clear head and a better study for next time. Until then, thank you for sticking with me so far.
It's weird that Divorce makes a more permanent connection between two adults than Marriage.
What does The Bible have to say on marriage, divorce, and how adult relationships are supposed to function?
Hey what's with that Romans part of the bible where God says a government must be obeyed?
An obnoxious atheist I know mentioned it.
Of course, a government and employees submitting to The People. Not the other way around.
The Social Contract is broken and the legacy administration is reaching the end of its tenure.
Are you referring to the 'render unto caesar' bit?
How do I BTFO the atheist cunt who won't shut up about the Bible's "Render unto caesar" stuff?
>>4399>Hey what's with that Romans part of the bible where God says a government must be obeyed?
Check the following out cuck.>Christian Theory of Resistance to Tyranny>Biblical examples of resisting illegitimate demands of legitimate governments.>Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Moses, Peter, Paul.>Need a religious exemption to Covid? Watch this video.>Christian culture provides built-in anti-bodies to tyranny.https://tv.gab.com/channel/cybertext/view/resisting-tyranny-biblical-examples-6161ffe3f025a17fe73ecc31
What's the "Whore of Babylon/Daughter of Babylon" stuff about in the Bible?
>>4412Jews and Muslims would love that kind of resistance by mass extermination of Christians.
whose side are you on
To be fair standing for what you believe is good advice. It's the how it's gone about, as a legal stand point that is a perfectly legal fine answer for illegal laws.
The side that wants a better future for good people despite the world being The Serpant's (according to The Bible, which is also subservient under God).Passively accepting mass murder by turning around and laying down sounds like a terrible plan.
Granted if everyone was on the same page that wouldn't occur in the first place due to nobody committing to actions against the All Mighty Lord.
And granted they are technically easily intimidated.
But they also go into hiding as easily as they lie.
Further more doing the spiritual working through the physical for the spiritual is fine as a plan as that what the idealized Christianity is about.
Doing as Jesus has done, yet also the old testament and pic related has worked along side the soft all pervasive part for a time.
t. uneducated semi-Christian pagan cuck
I think the best thing that can be done right now is to spread the truth.
I dream of a world where everyone knows jet fuel can't melt steel beams AND Hitler did nothing wrong.
A German cartoon: "If Adam and Even were East Asians 😉 and the snake said “Try this apple….”
You know, I've been thinking, with the rapture seemingly rapidly approaching...
the west (USA, general area) is not really mentioned in revelations at all, not even indirectly to my knowledge. There are still things said that apply globally, such as the various curses and such that affect all seas, land, and various other things.
One of those things mentioned early on in the book of revelations is famine, war, and death (1/4 of the global population specifically mentioned) from one of the 7 seals broken by Jesus.
I'm wondering if 'the west' isn't mentioned because it will be so far gone in recession that there is nothing it can do.
The other thing that I sometimes entertain the thought of is Texas pulls out of the USA union with some other states, and becomes one of the two countries that the antichrist obliterates early on in his reign. Though at the rate things are going, that's going to be poland and hungary... maybe. Unless those are still counted as one country under the EU, with the EU being defined as one of the 10 kings giving the antichrist power.
I don't know. Things are moving so fast its difficult to try to guess at whats going to happen in the near future should the rapture happen right now.
That's a false doctrine coming from the (((judeo-evangelic))) wing of Christianity.
You may want to do a further reading.https://www.bible.ca/rapture.htm
Incorrect. This is a biblical position that is backed by direct Scriptural references. We can see references to this in 1 Thessalonians 4:13
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
There is a literal going up into the air, what we understand with the terminology of rapture. This is further reinforced in Revelation 14:14-16, a reaping of the harvest of the earth, what Christ refers to in Matthew 13:37-43
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world*; the good seed are* the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil*; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And again in Matthew 9:36-38
36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted*, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then saith he unto his disciples,The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
I've been thinking, in revelations and daniel, there are 10 "kings" that give power to the antichrist. What if those kings are actually CEOs? A CEO is probably closer to the kind of rule a king had back in the day anyway.
Any thoughts on this?
Allow me to suggest that it more likely refers to bloodlines/families than CEOs, as that would include CEOs as well
I would say so, and they are much more relevant than heads of state (at least most of them) who are puppets and switched out frequently. Bill Clinton is no longer relevant, but Bill Gates still is, even if he isn't technically the CEO of Microsoft.
right... that's why I was thinking about it and said something "you know, this kinda makes more sense in today's climate". The uprooting of three kings could simply mean trade agreement levies against three large companies to the degree that they wither and die.
One of the things that is going to happen is God is going to utterly smite and destroy a central trading city used by the entire world. If USA is so far gone in recession like its shaping up to be, then what is left that can be considered a central trading hub for the world?
Dubai? It is already considered the richest city in the world. I don't know how much general trade goes on there though, or if things are moving in that direction for Dubai.
Right now I would still consider it to be new york simply because of the stonk exchange. However markets are getting ready to implode because of the impending collapse of the USD and government lockdowns over a fake virus.
Are there lots of people in Dubai doing crypto currency trading?
Remember, the tribulation only lasts 7 years. If USA collapses economically and puts the global trade focus on the middle east (or somewhere else), it would be much longer than 7 years to rebuild what was lost.
>1 Hour Divine Gregorian Chant Compilation Mix - Chant of the Mystics Vol. 1 Album - Mystical Chants>0:00:00 Orbis Factor Kyrie>0:07:40 Veni Sancte Spiritus>0:15:32 Signum Magnum>0:24:19 Pater Noster>0:28:58 Missa Regia Gloria>0:33:11 Salve Regina>0:36:37 Pange Lingua>0:41:26 Dies Irae>0:49:37 Lux Et Origo Credo>0:55:41 Exsultet>1:08:34 Regina Caelihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KGGts6WXsg
Please appreciate that this is not intended to be contentious. Please also appreciate that I agree that one can/should readily dismiss the orator personally for,... well its literally written on his face.
If it helps, dont even look at him when he speaks, the point is what he says.
I'm confused, and I watched it twice. Is he trying to say that satan is not in the bible and instead they "translated" it to satan because of some person with the same name the translators didn't like?
Regardless, this guy was using google translate to base everything he says off of. Google is pretty verifiably not trustworthy for anything, forming search results/words/news/translations in such a way that they can mold public opinion.
As a final note, that guy in the video has so many tattoos, and the way he talks, that it looks like he would rather talk with his body rather than mouth. Probably why its difficult to follow.
No. What he is saying is that Lucifer is never correlated with Satan at all, except through a political ploy by the person who transliterated the bible into latin, to undermine his rival at the time. The word Lucifer means bringer of light. It was translated that way because at the time the translator was competing with an individual NAMED Lucifer. So to subtly malign him in the translation, he translated the term Son of Morning into Bringer of Light.
The distinction is this.
Prior to the translation, the name lucifer exclusively meant Bringer of Light, and in a historical context Lucifer was exclusively reserved for the 'pursuit of enlightenment' in a very eastern traditional sense.
AFTER the translation, there was that definition AND Lucofer was correlated with the concept of 'the adversary'. It wasnt a true and accurate translation, it was political expedience.
Then he clearly does not know of the more accurately translated versions. New American Standard Bible is the most technically accurate English version available.https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB1995/#booklist
They started clean-slate with the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Its not as common probably because its too technically accurate for most people, so instead a fluffy "god" is invented and perpetrated using "translations" like the new living translation.
What Im getting at while checking my trip 7s
is that Lucifer is/was NOT the name of the fallen angel archetype, and that it was applied to was of artifice.
NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time. For instance, it deletes mention of an angelic interaction in John 5:4. So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name.
We furthermore can reference other passages to understand this is indeed the name being referred to beyond one verse you have picked out. For instance:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title, just as Jesus is the naming convention of God saves us, translated into English. Yet there is more that directly connects:
And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Now, Isaiah is telling this in a proverb against the king of Babylon. The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star and say it is divorced from any reverence to Lucifer and Satan as an entity, but rather, it makes no sense in that way, because it references things only Satan would do, weaken the nations, arise and be like the most High, the king is being talked to in a way that is referring to who possesses him and who he worships. It further connects to the fallen nature of Satan, the only one that would have been in heaven to cut down to the ground, as we know in Luke 10:18:
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Finally, we get to the root of this. We see the true morning star referenced in Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Jesus is the true morning star, the one that overcomes the one cut from heaven, the one that claims the title, the one that weakens the nations, the one that wants all to worship him over the Creator, the one that cannot accept Christ.
1 John 4:1-5
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth, who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions, who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichrist. This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan. He is the fallen angel, the once morning star, the star that will try to overcome the true morning star in our hearts, Jesus Christ.
Sorry I missed this one. Lots to go through.>NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time.
I'll come back to this one, but for clarity you literally just cast dount on the 3ntire translation.>So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name
To the contrary, we're not talking about a casual ommission, we're talking about - as you stated - the most authentic translation available, that deliberately omits any reference to Lucifer. This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberatrly translated it otherwise.>Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title
Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew. Specifically - as indicate in other thread(s) the word Lucifer is derived of a mistranslation for the greek/hebrew term(s) Son of Morning, bearing a resemblance to 'Lucifer' only to the political expedience of the translator, and not intellectual authenticity.
Moreover, it references 'Satan' transformed
into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one.
Unless thats suggesting that after 'the fall' Satan BECAME an angel, that doesnt help your argument.
Additionally, Ill throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the old testament (for all their faults, thats something the jews have on lockdown), but thats more of an aside.>revelations
Okay, we're gonna have fun with this one, but Ill start with the assertions.>O Lucifer, son of the morning!
And yet, thats literally not what it says. This is what Im getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways. Either the source is authoritative or it isnt. You dont get to pick and choose whether its accurate or not, nor insert what 'you're sure'was supposed to go there - in defiance of the authority (trade-wise) of the contemporary translators. One must assume that either A. the translators were not sufficiently competent, or those glaring ommissions were deliberate and with cause.>The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star
Incorrect. As has also been referenced, Lucifer is a title of enlightenment not a name.
What this means is that Isaiah is rebuking the king (and company) for daring to attempt such a title in opposition to the word's meaning
, for all the listed reasons.
Hes not calling him Lucifer, hes explaining why the term Lucifer is.not appropriate. Remember, they didnt write down the contemporaneous meanings because they were 'the only' meanings they were familiar with, and so to them doing so would be redundant. Ergo, you cant go into all this assuming the modern meaning of words, you have to read from the sources.>I Jesus
Really? You really think thats what was said?>Jesus is the true morning star,
You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
This is why Isaiah rebuked the king, because they were fixing to call him by a title only reserved (authentically) for the most high, which the king was not. To read this passage and try to assume that Lucifer as a concept is bad, and then read the term being -accurately! - applied to Jesus is ansurdly contradictory.
Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus, it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how theres a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.Remember my rant about people being ignorant of the very words they use? Its noy just a modern problem>antichrist
Now we're getting somewhere. Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual? Not a great plan.
In that Christ - derived of Christos - refers to the state of enlightenment, what do you think the antithesis means?
Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance. That is why its 'spirit of antichrist', and not 'of THE antichrist'. Additionally, spirit had many connotations for the time, including 'willful'.
Long story short, that section refers to people being willfully ignorant, NOT following a particular entity called 'the antichrist'.>This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth,
Uhm, where does it say that? It literally doesnt, not even implicitly.>who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions
Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesnt appear in the selected.section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his.mouth.>who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichris
Incorrect, as I have indicated.<who will attempt to falsely claim the throne on earth through willful ignorance
Ftfy>This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan>we
Slips aside, this is why Im going through lengths to.convey to you that Lucifer is a word/title/concept, not a name. Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice, given the extraordinary amount of research it takes to unearth the name and meaning. So we'll go with Satan.
Notice I dont contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc ad nauseum? Thats because its incontravertable. Sidenote reminder: I have told (you) specifically on countless occasions that there is no 'the' devil, that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal. But anyway.
My whole point has been and is to indicate that 'Lucifer' is not:
- A specific entity
- A/the antichrist
It IS in fact
- An archetype
- A title
- A commonly used term given the timefram3
>>4832>Really? You really think that's what was said?
I copied it directly from the text, so yes, Jesus is speaking in that line and is saying His name, Jesus, while using the pronoun "I". I don't understand this objection.>Jesus is the Lucifer!
I thought Lucifer isn't a term that exists in the Bible though, with the true translation or something... I'm not sure which is the true translation if you both will agree that I have cast doubt on the translation you showed me and deny it was wrong. If it is correct, then we can't begin to use Lucifer as a term for Christ because that term was not used in the Bible, or we are affixing a term that is not used in the text...
Unless I am correct that Lucifer does mean "son of the dawn", followed up in that translation by star of the morning... which means that it is exchangeable in this text and is not inaccurate.>Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual?
No. If you bothered to read any of my other posts, I have expressly said that there are layers to the antichrist system, the primary revealed in Revelation as a sort of super nation, seven heads and ten horns, the ten horns referring to ten kings, three of which are usurped in the text, giving way to one, which is the typically understood figurehead of the antichrist system, the widely known as the antichrist, which is why there is confusion.>we>Slips aside
No slip is present either way. I meant in writing as a collective we for Christians that describe Lucifer. It also counts due to the fact that all Christians house the Holy Spirit within, which means regardless of the angle, that is the truth.>there is no 'the' devil
The Bible points out several devils, also stated as being demons, but only attributes one the name Satan and says he is the devil. When you say you are reporting to the boss, you must be denying that your boss has a boss who has a boss, as the chain of command goes up.
No, rather there is a specified one being referred to, which is the fallen one that convinced all others to rebel.>Uhm, where does it say that?
Did you read the text I provided? It is in the very text you brought up that you claim proves that Lucifer both doesn't exist in the text and is actually good and Christ at the same time. I will quote again.
"This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
How you are fallen. This is the fallen one, as Christ said, seen cast down like lightning, as I have already mentioned in the provided texts.>Lucifer is a title of enlightenment, not a name
I already said that it was a title, which you quoted. However, you suggest that the title is incorrect, while also saying the title doesn't exist in the text. If the term Lucifer does exist, then your argument holds more weight because you can argue that the writer is saying he holds the title incorrectly.
But let's not forget "This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberately translated it otherwise." and >>4777
Which means you believe Lucifer was not in the text at all, meaning the argument the title was taken wrongly is abused, because the title is not present according to you. So, the argument must default to the content to determine what even is being talked about. We know he is talking to a king, which in not liked. So, if the text is referring only to him, and the title does not fit or exist, then why would the text give him the title while referring to the same falling as every other mention of Satan?
The most simple answer is that the author is calling the man one of the devils, possessed most likely, or at the very least claiming him to be. This would match the declaration against him, not giving him any worthy title, working as a parallel that the people understand, a fallen one like this son of the morning, morning star. Since when does the morning star fall? Would that not immediately break the metaphor? The mark of this insult is parallel.>it references Satan transformed into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one
Then it makes all the more sense for you to accept the adversary would take the title of enlightened one, which matched with a bright and morning star in this passage, if he is the great deceiver and enemy. Why would he not take to that immediately? He wants to be God and Jesus. Why would this title be sacred and cannot be in the hands of the biggest force against humanity? I am suggesting that this title was always his and his fall is what made that title ironic.>that is why is it 'spirit of antichrist' and not 'of THE antichrist'
Correct, that is why when this head of the system I have already referred to in my various other posts comes, he will be the antichrist among antichrists, the boss among bosses. That is what "the" keeps referring to.>NOT following a particular entity
2 Thessalonians 2:7-12
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with brightness of his coming. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Yes, there will be an entity at the head, a spokesman for Satan.>Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance.
As you can see, that is only part of the equation.>I'll throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the Old Testament
You are making it too easy. This refutes your whole claim that there can be a more accurate Bible translation, especially in the modern era, as they clearly just don't understand what words to put there. They left out Lucifer by accident by your own logic.>This is what I'm getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways.
As are you, as something can't not exist in the text but also be a proof that Lucifer means Jesus. You have helped me see though that son of dawn, which is what they replaced Lucifer with, helps tie down even more positively that it must be what Lucifer means, which makes double sense as the angel was named that as he has to do with the dawn light,
combined with what we know from your push that it is enlightenment, means that Lucifer is indeed the self given title to the one that I have connected as the main human antagonist. And since that title was attached right by "the star of the morning", we have a best title for Satan: morning star, fallen one.>Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew.
Greek as well it seems. Copied from a wiki, so not fully accurate, but there is quite a bit of evidence that seems to support each other:
"In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 14, the king of Babylon is condemned in a prophetic vision by the prophet Isaiah and is called [hebrew] (Helel ben Shachar, Hebrew for "shining one, son of the morning"), who is addressed as [hebrew] (Hêlêl ben Šāḥar), The title "Helel ben Shahar" refers to the planet Venus as the morning star, and that is how the Hebrew word is usually interpreted. The Hebrew word transliterated as Hêlêl or Heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint renders [hebrew] in Greek as Ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), "bringer of dawn", the Ancient Greek name for the morning star. Similarly the Vulgate renders [hebrew] in Latin as Lucifer, the name in that language for the morning star. According to the King James Bible-based Strong's Concordance, the original Hebrew word means "shining one, light-bearer", and the English translation given in the King James text is the Latin name for the planet Venus, "Lucifer", as it was already in the Wycliffe Bible.
However, the translation of [hebrew] as "Lucifer" has been abandoned in modern English translations of Isaiah 14:12. Present-day translations render [hebrew] as "morning star" (New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, Complete Jewish Bible), "daystar" (New Jerusalem Bible, The Message), "Day Star" (New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version), "shining one" (New Life Version, New World Translation, JPS Tanakh), or "shining star" (New Living Translation).
Which fits the Greek/Latin translation that Lucifer was pulled from to make the early translations, which older Hebrew versions don't have because there was no title for son of dawn. Now we have even more assured proof that we are on track. There is a strong connection with Lucifer, the morning star, and Satan.>Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesn't appear in the selected section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his mouth.
Correct, not in that text, but in the others I have shown, I have definitely made the case that Satan is connected to the spirit of antichrist, which will not confess Christ. So to say otherwise is disingenuous.>Notice I don't contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc. ad nauseum?
But he just can't have the title that he is known to possess?>Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice
Technically Jesus is wrong too, but it is the translated name. We use translated names to help us communicate. It is helpful when dealing with names of people from thousands of years ago in a dead tongue.>Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how there's a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.
And this is the major problem and why people hate that name tied to Jesus, as He is no mere philosopher, teacher, or builder. He is God incarnate. To say otherwise is to reject the foundations of the faith, for the death of a man, no matter how great, saves no one. If He does not atone, then there is no point to worship Him. If He did not raise from the dead, then neither will we. Then what are you left with? Utter uselessness. To deny the divinity and works of Christ is to deny the existence of the whole, because there is nothing to be gained from the words of a dead deity, for we serve the true and living God.
I suppose it is hard to understand, but you are suggesting that Jesus is simply wise is the foundational problem and why there is a massive battle we are having in the first place. If you are correct, then why do you fight for this title? What is the point of a Lucifer if there is no Christ? What is the point in knowledge if there is no life beyond this? What is the point in seeking the best when the worst is all that shall be rewarded in life?
Apparently the hebrew I tried to reference is seen by the spam filter as me attempting Zaldo text
>>4834>You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
There are diametrically opposing world views and are incompatible, which is perhaps why you care at all what this old book says about a title that you believe isn't even in it. Otherwise, if you truly believed it was all just different interpretations of the same truth, you would just accept it as one way of looking at it. But it is true, and you fight for the use and honor of a word that is meaningless to anyone other than the religiously studied.
Jesus isn't the light bearer. He is the light, the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come before the Father but through Him. He doesn't fight ignorance, though it is a product of those that refuse to follow the light, He has come to seek and to save that which is lost.
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death: because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief; when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
This means that Christ deserved royalty, but took a lowly life, declared who He was, and was killed for it, all according to the plan. For He didn't die just to say something smart. He didn't die to have people reach enlightenment. He died so all can be guiltless before God and enter into His presence. This is the fundamental reason Luciferianism cannot be supported, as a smart man, a good man, and a charitable man will all go to the same place, the grave. After that is the judgement. If you believe in no afterlife, then enlightenment is of little value. If there is, then does that enlightenment grant you access? Is it a scale of arbitrary weight of good to access? Or is it the truth, that no one gets in without sending the innocent to die willingly to cover their sin, as the weight of one sin alone tips the scales, of which all are guilty? And since all are guilty, that means no one can die for another to get in, save there was someone that was sent that was innocent. This is Jesus, Son of God, the Word made flesh, the anointed one promised to take the sin of the world away.
And now all may enter heaven. They only need to believe.
I probably didn't reply to each point and I probably didn't make everything super clear, but it is late and I got more things to do. I'll tack on some more if I look back and facepalm at something obvious I missed.
the correllation of "shining one, son of morning" is in the original text directly though. The guy in the video isn't using the right reference tools, picrel has the strong's entry for that word that he had google translated to "greatly praised".
on brief searching, the latin "lucifer" appears to refer to venus (the morning star) in the same way this passage seems to.
The interesting thing to me though is that Jesus says he is the bright morning star in revelation (greek picrel). It's not clear to me what the meaning is between the contrasting uses of the similar imagery.
Aside from the translation stuff, what exactly are you trying to say about that name and its connotations? You mentioned it's pursuit of enlightenment as in eastern traditions? I don't understand how that's related to the Word at all. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that stuff?
Can you explain Deuteronomy 25:11-12
It is self-explanatory. It is one of the laws. Very specific, but nothing further to explain.
What are you referring to as 'the original texts', and why arent translations being derived from that?>the guy isnt using the right reference tools
Back at you>Venus
Yea! So glad you mentioned it! Strange correlation, you might think. The Star of the Morning just happens to be the Greco-Roman deity of femininity.
Who was cast (down) from the divine trinity.
Ill avoid getting sidetracked with that tangent, but yes; Lucifer (as the son of morning and NOT 'the adversary') is literally referencing the otherwise wrongfully cadtigated and defamed divine feminine aspect.>can you elaborate
Of course, Ive alreafy begun. It will take me some time however. I mean, its well enough for me to reference my findings, but thats little use to the observer.
But to simply summarize.
Long before Christianity, many of the practices and teachings of Christianity went by the term that was applicable at the time. This term (through translations from okder dialects and traditions) was Luciferianism, or the tradition that sought and exhalted Lucifer, the bearer of knowledge/wisdom, resplendent light, etc. Aside from specofic details, Christianity is the younger 'brother' of Luciferianism, and when the Bible is adequately decoded (its an occult text with encrypted text, like/recognize it or not) they work seamlessly and in harmony.
The problem is that evil and avaricious individuals have been given carte blanche over Christendom, and have done of/with it what they will.
The God-figure in thebgarden of Eden was/is not God.
THATS Yyaldabaofh, who commanded that humanity stagnate in ignorance (literally forbidden to partake in the fruit of knowledge).
Lucifer/Jesus WAS the serpent that emancipated them through Eve (funny how much creation the female is respknsible for, and yet omitted from Christian recognition).
Ill come back to/for the rest.
I go by the Bible directly, and it says who the Creator is and who my Savior is quite clearly. luci aint it bro
יראת יהוה ראשית דעת
Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book, a veritably new fan-fiction based on far older (and more pure) traditions. Congratulations, you have chosen willful ignorance (read: literally the spirit of the antichrist).
>>4842>Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book,
Yup. It is not about reason, but faith.
A quick addendum:
My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia, however the fact remains that 'Jesus' is the name given to (the) Lucifer by Judeo-Christendom.
>>4843>ignorance is faith
Well, you are proposing "illuminism" aka "enlightment which means you consider that christians are in the darkness. It is your opinion.
On the other hoof, the consequences of that moral relativism brought by the "renaissance" are in full display today. So I will pass.
>>4844>My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype
According to the Bible that won't fly.
Huh? Do you know that Judeo is the anti-thesis of Christendom.
Judeo is defined by the rejection of Christ, so it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Enlightenment is what Christos meant. The Christ is the person who had achieved Christos.>which means you consider that christians are in the darkness
Do I? Whether a person is of the antichrist (willfully ignorant) is specific to the individual. I consider individuals who are Christian and willfully ignorant just as much of the antichrist as non Christians who do likewise. Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry, idgaf what flavor a person calls themselves.>the rennaissance
As I said, willful ignorance, which is of the antichrost.
Whered the Old Testament come from bucko?
Hello jordan peterson.
>>4849>Enlightenment is what Christos meant.
Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.>the rennaissance>Such as?
Get a book about general history. It has no point to engage with you if you are at k-12 level.
No retort but Ad Hominem? Cant say the jews eh? Cant acknowledge that the old testament is the exact same book as the Torah? Cant acknowledge that Christendom is inexorably tied to Judaism?>>4852>Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.<Enlightenment as a concept has ONLY existed in the last 600 years. NO ONE EVER has had such a tradition in all of history. No civilizations, cultures, or groups EVER pursued enlightenment - nevermind all the etymological origins of words - outside the 16th century
o_o>>4852>resorts to insults
I see, you're so dogmatic that you'd rather engage in insults rather than validate one of the vaguest statements ITT. Very anti-
Christian of you.
You can do better. I'm confident in your eloquence.
You're right I could but pearls before swine, after all.
>>4842>your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book
precisely. otherwise, I would not be adhering to Christ, who is the revealed Word.
cryptic knowledge is a false idol. I'm not even sure what you're seeking by "enlightenment". in any case, you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity, turning it instead into a formless and shifting eastern mysticism blob.
I've felt the pull of it before, and it's the junk food of spirituality. Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it, but when you spend actual time reading it then it's powerful and active in and through you. This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things, but despite spending lots of time and getting high off it, there's really no substance to it practically. Same difference between eating healthy meals vs eating junk food as your only food.
Before we continue, what orthodoxy and/or denomination to you prescribe to?>cryptic knowledge
Theres nothing cryptic about it, if one has done their homework>you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity
Wrong again, Im advocating for the dissolution of the authoritarian devotion to a fable that was intended to convey meaning before it was wrested and corrupted into a tyrrannical doctrine of 'believe and do what you're told', as has happened with Christianity (not exclusively).>Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it
Sorry, but thats simply not true, at least in my experience. Just because interpret the word differently than you doesnt mean I dont respect the work. What I DONT resprect is the blind and fanatical devotion that has developed generationally, which could only occurr once the masses have been so far removed from the meanings and concepts that what is false is readily purported as true.
I know all about the 'religious experience', its one of my favorite states to experience. The problem is, religious experiences can be induced and people can be conditioned to believe and feel gratified in the pursuit of ideas that are patently false, and the ignorance of history (or anything, if it contests the rather infantile level of due diligence applied in critical analysis) is observably and conclusively anti-Jesus.>This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things
Then you were doing it wrong, because metaphysics is anything BUT exciting and dopamine-inducing. Its like reading an encyclopedia. One doesnt do it because its fun, exciting, or dopamine-stimulating, one does it because it leads to a greater level of comprehension and understanding. Metaphysics is pretty boring tbh, but the ends are worth the effort.>Healthy food vs. junk food
Good choice of metaphor, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Which is more 'junk food'?
In one practice, one does what they are told, 'eats' what they are told to 'eat', and spends their life a supplicant.
In another, one realizes that they are responsible for their own actions beyond the dictates of men or books (read: learns to self regulate, independently), and 'eats' progressively healthier as they come to comprehend better ingredients, different ways of preparing the food, etc, while also developing their skills of preparing said food.
One practice involves stagnation and arrested development (read: increasing entropy) and one involves emergence and self actualization (read: increasing affinity).
sorry, I just don't see it that way. I do obey Jesus, who is in direct authority over me. I see no problem with that. It is precisely the arrogance written about for the shining star of morning passage which seeks to elevate the individual to an equal authority as God. It's a self-idolatry trap.
And you're entitled to that position.
On the contrary, I exalt Jesus/Lucifer as the source of my emergence. However, I dont do what men tell me I 'must'.
If not from the book, wtf is your source?
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
>>4871>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.
>>4873>That's where you are wrong bucko.
According to which orthodoxy?
On the topic of orthodoxy, care to comment on these nuggets pulled from the flatty?
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian
does flatty provide a source for these claims
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.
Got away from my point.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.
>>4871>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?
>>4844>>4861>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.
>>4871>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.
>>4832>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.>sub-race of infernal.>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.
>>4832>- Satan>- A specific entity>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.
>>4905>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the
Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.
So to throw my hat into the ring, the contexts used for 'morning star' is two fold. First is the enlightened, they radiate, they guide (such as the North Star), they are a point of reference, to be the way, the truth and the light.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.
When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?>>4901>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme
. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy. >Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.
>>4902>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Continuing>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).>>4903>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
By the by, before praying do you do preprayer praying?
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.
>>4909>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.
No, this thread is about Bible study
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?
Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.
Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.
This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.
Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.
>>4910>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.
>>4910>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.>>4910>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
>>4916>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.
>>4917>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived. Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.
Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
>>4909>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.
>>4923>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something
>>4923>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.>point to me
Ill get right on it.>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.
His revealed word [i]according to whom?>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.
Before I set out to provide all the materials requested, let me leave you with a Zen Koan.>>4924>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact
that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.
>>4927>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.>>4929>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
>>4927>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.
>>4931>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points
>>4933>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.>>4934>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.
>>4933>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.
Ugh, this thread is already basically derailed. Idk why I even tried.
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.
I will relent and do another thread if you prefer, this thread seemed dormant and thought that at the least it might be livened up
(read: Im taking credit for having reinvigotated a return to subject matter Xp)
>>4941>relent and do another thread
That would be preferable for both conversations.
Allow me to drop the following.>Moral Relativism (the real heresy and apostasy)https://odysee.com/@LitteralTruth:b/101500-1440x3200:1
From a Christian standpoint.
I have a question for Christians since i'm sure some will visit this thread. God knows the future, the bible says this. God also knows who we are before we are born and if we will be saved or not. Prayer really doesn't mean anything, we cannot change Gods will. With that being said, how are we anything more than puppets? The book has already been written.
Not all Christians believe in determinism and not all who believe in determinism believe in anything resembling a deity. Many Christians believe in metaphysical free will, and quite a few atheists believe in a deterministic universe.
But to me, it’s kind of silly to think that determinism makes everything pointless. You don’t say “well what happens next doesn’t matter” in a book or a film just because the book is already written and the film has already been shot and edited. You keep watching. And just because all of an actor’s lines are written doesn’t make the actor any less important.
Could it be that we do have actual, proper free will, but God already knows what we are going to do with it. It's not contradictory in and of itself.
Knowing what we WILL do is contradictory to the idea of free will and brings it back to the idea of determinism.
Knowing what we MIGHT do isn't. If you assume that God is omnipotent, then it's within its powers to know all the infinite possibilities of the future at once.>>4976
You'll pray, or not pray, regardless if determinism is in action.
The concept of time is deterministic. For there to be a "future" where stuff has not yet happened but will happen our actions must be set in stone.
We have free will and we can make our own choices. People can guess at what we might do next. But God knows all and will make perfect guesses.
Not if God is outside of time, if he is, then the distinction between what we will do and what we already did is irrelevant, I believe
Omnipresence suggests not only being beyond time, but beyond all apparent distinction of possibility. Beyond-quantum, to attempt to wordsmith the idea.
Allow me to drop a little grenade.
I wouldnt call that a hand grenade. The Apocrypha, the Pesdepigraphia, the dead sea scrolls, etc. has been established for decades.
Not to be catty, but I would assume the response to be along the lines of "not inspired by God", "Heretical", etc.>pic related
Im not contesting your point however, and no bully to OP but historically speaking, the modern perception of Christianity and its role in society has only fluorished to the degree it has because groups desiring power come along and decide to engage in revisionist history, and religious history (specifically, the social concept of religious history) observably has little to nothing to do with actual evidence and record.
Christianity is by no means the worst or even an exclusive example, theyre just the most significant contemporary.
The Guy Richie movie Revolver comes to mind, and directly references many of the inferences of this video analogously.Quick question tho, how does this video which only posits a series of perspectives based (loosely) on the Bible (with no citations) on-topic for a bible-study thread, but somehow referencing the findings of the gnostics - a series of perspectives based on devout bible scholars - off topic?Oh and yeah, quick reminder; the old testament god - Yyaldabaoth - is the entity that is contempraneously referred to as Satan
I believe the anon simply wanted to bump the thread to get me to come back and post while trying to have something sort of related to the topic of the Bible. I haven't had a chance to watch it to see if it is related or accurate, but I don't doubt that the title is one its own is supported by the Bible. I will have a full answer to the implications and Biblical evidence or lack thereof for this claim when I have the time. The papers I have to finish writing are taking it out of me.
It's David Pawson's perspective by taking the Bible literally all 66 books according to him.
Basically, the devil is an entity (being, 'person' angel), with a mind, and a personality. He has an agenda and a modus operandi.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9A-v2_b10>>5184
Wishing you well, and had a semi on topic/off-topic post for the thread on hand.
Definitely will watch when I beat this deadline. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, but what you believe is irrelevant. Thats been among my salient points; Study does not mean 'assimilate without question, criticism, or analysis', it means to investigate, t3st, and observe with ideally as minimal bias/conviction as possible. That's far and away from what is going on ITT.>>5185>taking the bible literally
Well, good luck with that intended, still waiting to hear what denomination>the devil has a mind, a personality
and ostensibly a body. I dont contest that, Im saying theres a tribe of Christians (who were murdered,... whats that Tyrion Lannister quote about cutting out a mans tongue?) who differentiate between the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament. Im further suggesting that there is more depth to christendom than what has been professed in either backward christian
'groups' OR 'established' churches and that all of THIS perspective is literally in/of the bible (spec new testament), depending on interpretation.
But apparently my
interpretations of text - literally study of the bible - is irrelevant? Because another guy's interpretation of the same text 'said so'?
Giving the quick rundown of the video. One is about ten minutes the other an hour.
My affiliation is what I posted before. I'm not sure what the denomination of Pawson, due to the cursory view.>>3801>>4433>>4941>>4942
Ah... My bad.
Don't sweat it. Content in this thread isn't exactly strict. Just because some anons want to restrict it doesn't mean that no topics outside their preferred should be talked about. Bible study is rather broad, and I would wager that they would prefer a singular thread rather than a dozen Christian threads.
Especially since the devil and the identity of the entity is extremely important to the interpretation of the text as the above anon can attest to. The view of the existence of just this one entity has led to a massively different interpretation. It makes for a perfect study in the Bible.
So reading my posts I didn't actually say what denomination I started from Lutheran or Presbyterian or something there was the book(s) and the events. So yeah, didn't know at the time nor do I want to dig too deeply sets off also sorts of warnings. I could be wrong about that, just assume it's lightly read alongside talking vegetables. Sorry about that.
Ah also here's this everyone.>>5191 →
>>5192>Lutheran and Presbyterian
Based, that will save me some time in discussion (and volunteer time in researching) of the nuance of the two.Now if you'd said Methodist, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, or Jehova's Witness,...
And yeah, I previously relented on the Gnostics, but find that their positions are as relevant to bible study as any, in that their positions are derived from studying the bible.
The problem is, the term Christian has become so ubiquitous and universally applied that:
1. Countless people call themselves Christian, on an observably polarized scale of specific beliefs that often conflict and contrast. Ask an Espiscopalian about how permissible faggotry is, for example. Now ask a Baptist. Now ask... you get the point.
2. Religious history is a vastly and woefully neglected area of study for most people, who instead turn to the bible (spec. the Old Testament) for the 'historical record' protip: nothing fails like Bible history
3. Alongside Religious history (among the woefully neglected studies) is the history and etymology of language and meaning. Yes, there are scholars who have done the work translating the words, but that does nothing to aid the reader in comprehension of the words and meaning, and I hope I needn't present evidence of how dismal the average person's comprehension of their native tongue is.
To wit, a devout Catholic and a Luciferian can both honestly and unironically call themselves Christian while claiming the other is false, both citing historical evidence and material resulting with no consenaus.
>How The Devil And Satan Are Defined By Scripture>Here we present an essay we found that does well looking closely at what the Scriptures actually say — and do not say — about “the devil” and “satan” — and why it is important for Christians to understand this crucial subject.https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-devil-and-satan-are-defined-by-scripture/
For a quick summary/rundown for what I consider to be a quick version of the findings of the Gnostics.
>Banning The Bible>It's Come To This!>In a shocking experiment, random beachgoers in San Diego, California are asked if they’ll sign a petition to ban the Bible. Their reactions will shock you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XckcMeSueMA
Well, I have been putting it off and putting it off, but it looks like I need to come back and make some proper posts and dissect these interpretations that fly in the face of the Biblical narrative as written and instead focus on books that run completely counter to the evidence written by the strongest supporters of Christ. Let's dive in as I work through the night to break it all down.
It will take some time, maybe even several days, but I will first address the Armored Skeptic video, then this one, then I will return to the book of Revelation that I have been neglecting for so long. Despite my breakdown, I doubt anyone will be satisfied, but I will finally be able to put to words my frustrations with this interpretation.
2000 years and kikery never changes
Appreciated. Please note, the blond guy is presented purely for information purposesI do not endorse him as any degree of authority on interpretation of said information. Like most, he appears to have gotten caught up in the information as is, rather than using the information to extrapolate the underlying meaning of gnostic teachings.
He clarified at the end that it was all supposed to be metaphorical of the conditions they were facing, but the structure still doesn’t make sense if it is metaphorical. I think I’ll actually change my approach to address that one first to rule it out as a legitimate form of a theology as a literal interpretation and an inadequate metaphor as well.
However, crucial information is shared between the two presenters, and both will be addressed in full. I now plan to take a bit longer and make visual aids to my points, otherwise I believe I will not have a focused response and others might gloss over what I am attempting to address.
Thats actually not the bit I was referring to. In another video he makes an astonishing statement about how Socialism is 'government-instituted altruism', alongside a few other 'gems' that I would hate for everyone to miss out on.
Again, Im presenting him ONLY for his summaries of Gnosticism.
Adittionally, in preparation for your rebuttal, I have to acknowladge an oversight to .uch of my premise.
While the teachings/interpretations of the Gnostics are based largely on the books of the - shall we say approved - Bible, it is also heavily wrighted by the banned/removed/omitted books of the bible.
As such (and Im sure we could debate until the end as to the validity/invalidity, admissibility/inadmissibility, or legitimacy/illegitimacy of either including or omitting such texts, and how that has shaped Christian history and the interpretations across generations without reaching a consensus), I acknowledge that presenting/arguing banned biblical texts is a bit derailing in a thread very conclusively intended to study the bible from an orthodox position. And, I apologize for any outbursts in which I may lose sight of that (not explicit, but close enough) fact in the pursuit of my attempts to illustrate a viewpoint (Gnosticism, not exclusively) that is often and otherwise maligned because its largely not been presented authentically.
I will continue to present counterpoint as is relevant, but I will temper my enthusiasm and keep it on topic to the books/ideas presented.
Banned texts, works of Biblical criticism, and otherwise deemed heretical books are all work a look in the Bible study thread. Just know that the ultimate conclusion might not be completely satisfactory as it will ultimately be judged by not only merit, but if the Bible supports the narrative presented.
In the case of Gnosticism, it argues the Bible is completely wrong and the texts they provide are both secret information from the authors or the best guesses at what the authors would have wrote as I don’t think anyone believes that Adam, which they are arguing is a metaphorical entity anyway, wrote a book and it was preserved by people and yet the texts date to the same era as the other works of the Gnostics.
The denial of the Bible will ultimately lead to a stalemate in the texts where one cannot win over the other and the winner would be a combination of logic and trust in one or the other, and my bias will lean to the Bible being true. However, I will still attempt to the best of my ability to view the opposing viewpoint and discuss as many logical conclusions that can be drawn from the text and how it could be true. For an example of my notes so far, the concept that the book is a metaphor falls apart a bit when dealing with the characters from the Bible and then putting them in a completely different story than what is presented in the Bible, becoming a curated place for your own narrative… yet things still do not compute in such cases as the metaphorical implications of the divine mind beings that come down and save a portion of humanity from the Flood outside Noah’s ark.
This makes no literal sense in that should that be the case, why didn’t those beings save Noah and deny the evil god of the material world the leverage for an eternal servant. It also makes no metaphorical sense in that this is a form of inherited racial superiority of a hidden race as the mind beings chose to reject the descendants of the metaphorical Noah, meaning the people that the stories would promote Noah as having, which is larger than the Jewish population, including peoples all over the Middle East, Cyprus, many African lands, possibly Greece, and Russia. From there the Biblical text focuses on the Mediterranean area, but the conclusions of this is that many people could be descendants of Noah as Biblically acknowledged, and if the text is to be fully believe, all people are, then the response is that most people are disposable to the divine mind as only the chosen by divine mind grace are worthy to be kept from the evil god of the material world.
Metaphorically, this might just be an expression of how the world is typically not concerned with matters of the mind and instead worried about the physical, but it logically implies superiority of those that are one with Gnosis and the damnation of those that are not, equating them to a God that hates the world it made and the people therein. Somehow has the potential to be even worse than the most self-righteous of Christians, which is displayed in the presenter concluding not only are Christians wrong, but the founders worship death and suffering and promote it against the wishes of Christ, and those today that follow it are like them in service to this version of God proclaimed to be true.
In my breakdown I will go over as many implications I can possibly over the resulting theology that comes from a God that is actually Satan and how that would have effected a literal history, a Biblical narrative, the world today, and metaphorical considerations to cover my bases. Unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time with other commitments, but I will still work on this and finish it despite the length of time that elapses.
Hey what if "Noah made an ark to get his family and 2 of every animal away from the flood" is a metaphor for "Noah made a boat and left the civilization he knew was destined for societal collapse, and he brought enough animals to eat during the journey"?
I agree with many of your points, and since this is a bit of a preamble I'll wait until your thorough analysis.
I will point out as a caveat though: there are portions of the Bible - mostly (not exclusively) Old Testament - that present historical 'records' that have since been proven impossibly inaccurate. Mostly these pertain to archeological finds and the times/dates of civilizations, but there are many events purported by the Bible that simply could not have occurred at the place, time, or involving the individuals claimed, historically.
What Im saying (and Im NOT one of the 'throw the damn thing out cuz its historically inaccurate) is that one should appreciate that in spite of the MANY truths it conveys, the book cannot be said to be 100% literal and accurate, though I appreciate that your bias leans in that direction.
My bias is toward the idea that Jesus (who/whenever he WAS [cuz he was]) was more akin to what was depicted in the Gospel of Thomas, and that what has become orthodox (at the expense of millennia of genocide of anyone who disagreed, by the church) was and is as political as it was for Constantine to adopt the Christian movement (at the time) to aid him in winning wars and amassing power.
The Gospel of Jesus (nevermind the historical accuracy issues) attempts to portray a scenario in which the individuals in question (mostly the apostles) are without agenda, desire, motivation, or basic human psychology, unless otherwise stated, and the only people ever claimed to be fallible (read: artifice) are the 'bad guys', who themselves are basically cartoonish caricatures.
Not trying to rewrite the story, but the interview with Pilate was especially bad, when at-the-time Roman law is considered (Jews had no supremacy, nor the authority to charge anyone with heresy, and they would have been thrown out of court for trying).
Rambling, Ill stop.>>5321
Your question is as moronic as this image
The reason the court happened was to quell rebellion. The Romans had found Jesus not a threat, but the threat was the Jewish population which had crowded and started chanting to kill Jesus. Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome. We know a Jewish rebellion did occur just a few decades later, meaning there was good cause to take the case and an attempt was made at appeasing them by releasing Christ and not a murderer, but the crowd decided the reverse.
The reason the Jews couldn't kill anyone was the loss of capital punishment. If they killed without government approval, they could be tried themselves for breaking chain of command with possible rebellious intent. Therefore, it makes sense that they would leverage the religious celebration of the Passover to squeeze by a heresy charge, while the most people were occupying Jerusalem as well, having the most explosive potential to start a rebellion.
There is no other way it could have played out except secret assassination, which was possible, but if ever traced back to them would be their undoing. It isn't like Jesus' entrance and presence in the city was a secret, and there was a religious celebration. Him turning up dead by the people that wanted Him dead would be public knowledge and rumors would reach the authorities.
>>5323>+1 updoot: comment edition
>>5328>Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome
Except thats false. Jews were not so numerous - even in jerusalem - that they threatened the Roman empire thats absurd. Additionally, Roman law permitted all manner of religious practice and did not view other forms of religion as heretical, so the idea that Romans wefe threatened by Jesus is equally absurd. Pilate, having no impetus to favor, coddle, or go easy on 'the mob' had Roman soldiers at his disposal, and could have had any uppity jews in cages or worse, with a gesture.
The authors of the new testament didnt know Roman law, and the portrayal we are give is - as I said - cartoonish and so absurd that Im surprised no one is seen twirling a mustache.
You may recall this post... I struggle to find it.
Anyway, Ill repost it in the bar.>>>/sp/5332 →
The point of my posting the video is the citations of Roman law and how it was applied. Romans hardly cared for the jews, who were just one small (comparatively) group in a multi-continental empire. The jews didnt even have VOTING rights.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I affirmed the Jews had no right, which is why they were not allowed to carry out an execution. This is why they pressured Romans to do it.
You are absolutely wrong about Jewish concentrations on Passover. We know this from the rebellion that occurred during the Jewish-Roman war of which a quick wiki search revealed:
"According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem and 100,000 in Galilee; 97,000 enslaved."
Non-combatants being rebel peasants of course. Even accounting for exaggeration, we learn that "number exceeds the entire pre-siege population of Jerusalem. Many of the casualties were observant Jews from across the world such as Babylon and Egypt who had travelled to Jerusalem wanting to celebrate the yearly Passover but instead got trapped in the chaotic siege". Hmm... it's like a big celebration that brings in a big Jewish population of Jews that might start some shit during a rebellion. Even if we only look at the official combatants at 30,000, that is 30,000 more than nothing if you execute one man, as it is not in the best interests of Roman to have a rebellion when the alternative is just to kill the heretic on the religious celebration and appease the Jewish peasantry until they go back home. It would have been the head of the regional authorities that were put in charge to contain rebellions against the throne. Failing in that manner would cost Rome time, money, and lives. The Jews knew this and applied pressure to have this one trial occur. I know a wiki isn't a great source and the Jews like to boost their casualty count, but it does confirm the celebration brought in enough forces to overwhelm the local guard and more needed to be brought from mainland. This rules out being able to arrest the Jewish authority as that would be seen as a hostile takeover against the agreed terms allowing for their existence and would launch a rebellion.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)
We know the Roman authorities tried to pass it off to Herod to deal with, but the Pharisees simply returned with a crowd that chanted for the death of the man. To ignore that request would to be sentenced for having to inconvenience Rome with putting down the rebellion in your place as well as divert attention and funds from homeland projects and defense from barbarian invasion. I don't have to know the intricacies of Roman law to know economic factors such as war was not exactly desired, else there would be no regional authority they could have even met with. We can thus conclude that the law had little power in the face of a looming rebellion and pressure was applied to both sides of the conflict which allowed the trial of Jesus to proceed as displayed in Scripture.
>Very few people that are aware of who the GOD of this world really is - David Pawson>Demon translate to "inferior deity".. Satan is the GOD of this world. He is not the true God.>David Pawson talk.https://www.bitchute.com/video/JzPgqeMDr2Cs/
I believe this was posted before.
Duuuuuuuuuudesaw this exact image today, felt a compulsion to save/post it but decided, nah
Not my meme but I'm glad it is spreading.
By posting this, I am not making an argument or positing an idea. This is being posted purely as food for thought.https://youtu.be/KGNAOZTXkac
Jordan Peterson, talking about his transition from Atheism. Not literally a bible study matter, but it compliments bible study so well that it's being posted
He sounds like Big The Cat only gayer and more retarded
Here is a short video featuring Geneticall Modified Skeptic speaking with Dr. Bart Ehrman - among the world's foremost contemporary Biblical historians - about 4 common misconceptions pertaining to the New Testament.
I will be purchasing a pass to their 4-day conference, which afyer viewing I will.make available to the board (what, GMS openly invites people to share with their friends).
OP, I hope to have a good discussion about the content.
I’m still working on my first project. I’ll see where I can add this into the series as this thing is going to take multiple parts at this rate to organize.
Have to rework an opening to the whole thing now that the damn atheist hate thread has so much traction that I need to define and defend my worldview and lay down the foundation of the faith as not Jewish subversion in order to not be immediately discounted and my work ignored outright. Plus the other interests I want to get into such as learning music and such, I will get to it in time.
I can tell you though immediately that first point is completely wrong in John 21:24
This is the disciple which testified that of these things and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Directly claiming to be the one in the same as the disciple that testified in the beginning in John 1:6-8
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.
You will find all were written in the third person to try to obfuscate praise directly to themselves, in which John replaces all mentions of John with “the disciple Jesus loved” to avoid taking credit from the parts of the story he was present in. The titles were added in post and not by the authors themselves, which makes doubly strange why the doctor here thinks Revelation was a proper title when it literally is another added in post title to a letter from a prison meaning revealing what happens. There are no titles in the Bible that were not added in post. Genesis means beginning. Exodus means leaving. This is a pattern throughout.
As for who wrote it, the books say they were written the same as was told to people as they mention in the letters from Paul and Peter, saying they are all to be used for doctrine, meaning that if they were written afterwards, they could not have ratified their legitimacy. Furthermore, if everything was written, including the letters, at a later date, then the Roman backed sources calling for the execution of Christians makes no sense, as that creation date would not explode in enough time to meet with the documented cases of Romans seeing Christian expansion as a problem.
Ultimately, it is up to you to decide which is more likely, a religion made on the fly far later than we know or something that built on the events that claimed to happen and would explain how it matches historical records. I know you already have your answer, but I will have more research and evidence to provide as I continue with my project. If my arguments don’t satisfy, then my project likely won’t either, but it will at least be the best I can give.
I don’t know who this guy is, but that’s not correct. The word Gentile is not in Genesis 25:23, the word nation is. In this context, two nations will be born, yes, but Gentile means those that are not circumcised. The New Testament clarifies that there is no difference save that the circumcised were bound to the law and there is no binding law after Christ’s work, thus the practice is no longer justified as a separation between people.
Since only Jews practiced circumcision in Biblical context, it does indeed mean non-Jew, as no people other than Jews did it in the region. Plus, it doesn’t make sense otherwise when looking at the declaration that there is no difference in circumcision and no circumcision, between Jew and Greek, and the Jew and Gentile as referenced in Romans 9:24, as each would be subject to condemnation for sins and Christ removed all sins equally from all people, calling all to be the sons of God.
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Just to clarify, you're contesting his historical analysis because it says in the bible that the person writing the book derived 'the author's' gospel from things that they said? Doesnt that kind of prove Ehrman's point? Wouldnt the author write in the first person?
I will contest because otherwise the author is deceiving the audience, meaning there is no use for the entire text. It would be equivalent to Mien Kampf being written by some dude decades after Hitler. It would make the document useless as a study about the lives of the people it is written about because it would be either speculation by the author or it would be outright fiction.
We know each author claimed that the Holy Spirit gave inspiration for their writing style. Given their desire to not take credit as divine influences themselves, only giving testimony to the truthfulness of their witness, they wrote in the third person to keep themselves from being worshipped as equivalent to the one they wrote about.
Each of the four Gospels not only agree with each other, but connect directly with other writings from the Bible such as the letters by Paul and Peter to Old Testament prophecy and pattern. It isn’t just true because of necessity, but because it connects where other written works do not. It is clearly written by eye witnesses because each were written as a testimony to give either during trial or to prove their claims as legitimate. Luke’s Gospel was written to prove Paul’s claims were accurate to a man named Theophilus for example.
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
He claims to have perfect understanding of all things that took place from the beginning of the story. This means eye witness. We get further proof that the same author wrote Acts.
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Direct claims that an author is writing that is involved with the life of Christ and is writing to an individual despite third person. It is indeed possible to argue against this doctor’s claims because they are a simplistic dismissal despite textual evidence to the contrary.
Ill skip the appeals to authority for the time being. So you are alleging that Dr. Ehrman's findings are inaccurate cuz... the Bible says so?
Are you honestly suggesting that the Bible's position was not considered, or that the historical analysis is in some way insufficient? Aside from the Bible - the very document Ehrman is alleging is historically false (with evidence) - and your convictions to it, what evidence do you have that can refute his position?
I literally gave you textual evidence that has the first person. Did you read what I posted at all? His claim is completely faulty because he said it was all third person and could not be written by an eye witness. That was his proof he gave. The author mentioned by name a recipient that was alive at the time that aligns with the historical narrative. This means that it is at least possible to have been written when it was claimed to by who it was. The dismissal has a lack of evidence. My evidence is pointing this out. If you want more, you are going to have to wait for me to research and compile a video lesson.
You are also appealing to the authority of a doctor who tried to dismiss something by giving factually incorrect analysis. This is why I am going to make a whole video series to explain this shit because you just skip over anything I write down. Maybe in video format I can make it these points stick.
But see, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels ARE accurate; I find it highly implausible, but that's my bias for you.
Conversely, are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels are NOT infallible? And you'll note, I expressly DECLINED to appeal to authority. Having said, the doc has put himself and his research on the forefront. Moreover, that video is just a snippet; the actual discussion is a several day affair. Im not saying the doc is wrong, Im saying its premature to dismiss his position simply because the document in question can be said to assert its own viability in a few of a number of interpretations.
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof. Don’t be surprised when I default to it as my primary resource as the whole point of Christianity is that this book is correct.
Meanwhile, I respect that you believe you are not appealing to authority. I realize in this field of discussion you need to rely on sources outside ourselves as the evidence has been millennia in accumulation. However, you did say that my reference to the Bible when it was expressly brought up in context of what it did or did not contain was comparable to saying the Bible says so therefore it must be.
The reason this is not a worthy comparison is that I could say the same about the author, who said the Bible is not correct because the Bible is written in x style, therefore it is wrong. However, both him and my own referencing the Bible is fully acceptable given the debate of the contents. He said the Gospels contained no first person language which discounted it as written by any eye witness. This was countered by my observation.
This observation doesn’t prove the Bible as correct. It not proved the doctor as wrong. It does contain the language. His assumption in the first place was also faulty that the lack of first person language does not disprove anything. Let me give you an example from my previous employment. Someone had complained about their experience at the bank and claimed to want to take legal action against the bank. I had to write a report about the happening in the third person where I could relating to the person, leaving out my personal experience with the person to let the bank know exactly what the person was doing. Did I not write the report? It has third person language.
Even given the argument that third person language might suggest there might be another writer than an eye witness, not only is it not enough to dismiss the author as one, but there is first person language. The argument is rendered nonsensical.
So now your suggestion that I am relying on an appeal to authority while your claim that you are not makes little sense. We both have authorities we are appealing to. The difference is I have provided counter evidence to the claim and it is being dismissed because I used the text in question, poisoning the use of it as only assuming it is infallible when I have used it in proper context.
I assume he does indeed have many more proofs and ones I am not equipped to answer or counter. However, I do have the ability to research as well and come up with a better, more encompassing response in time. I cannot dismiss all he has claimed based on one point. I can dismiss his one particular point as it is faulty both in evidence and logic.
>>5632>It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible
Then any gesture you might affect is a lie. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to (with intellectual honesty) acknowledge the possible fallibility. Next time a 'no' will suffice.
Curious, what is original sin according to Christians (specifically baptists, since you can't credibly represent other denominations, especially given the Baptist aversion to ecumenism)?
Cuz in 'Christianity' BEFORE Constantine and the church, it was Ignorance. Followed in close second by dishonesty.
Ill leave you to your ignorance then.And yes, if you're relying on a source to validate its self in defiance of dissent, original sin.
Feel free to ignore me!
I will quote my last post:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof.
I will highlight my statements:
I will work with the possibility it is fallible.
I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is [infallible] without proof.
You once again have ignored every statement I have made, including that I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary. You have zero respect for me and so I shall have none for you. Stay the hell away from my thread in the future if you are not going to argue in good faith without attacking my credibility as a debater.
So, if I dont respond how you think I should, I'm all those things?
Fun fact, your credibility as a debater was always the issue
>I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary
And yet you said that after declaring that so assuming is anathema to faith. Therefore you can't genuinely entertain such a notion without being in conflict with your faith. As I know your faith is paramount, you therefore assign second fiddle to intellectual exploration, meaning any gesture you could/would.make is false.
So which is it? Are you wavering in your faith, or are you disingenuously trying to palcate? Feel free to ignore.
>I can pretend to!
Have fun pretending, then
You are free to respond however you want to. Also, what things? I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.>>5638
If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it? See >>5615
You said you wanted me specifically to have a discussion. If you believe I am incapable as a debater, then I suppose you only ask for validation? I would rather believe you actually care to hear what the opposing side has to say, but seeing as you have yet to respond to any of my statements besides those that offend you to some degree, I am beginning to have my doubts.
I have answered why I had issue with the doctor in the video, I gave logical answers to why I hold issue and you instead zero into my beliefs as proof that I am not going to argue in good faith. If you want to continue, your attacks will indeed make me ignore you as you are showing your intent isn’t the debate but discrediting me as a presenter. Take down my arguments and then I will respect you. Keep this up and I will heed your advice to simply ignore your contributions to my thread.>>5639>you must choose or you are a liar
Why? I guess you must genuinely believe in flat earth since you debate that autist in his thread. Wait… are you actually holding the position that you can both believe something is either fundamentally correct or incorrect and still hold a worthwhile debate over the logical and empirical evidence presented? No. It couldn’t be that.>>5640>pretending
Are you pretending to debate the flat earther? Maybe you are just wasting time in his thread to feel nice, but I had the impression you were actually trying to prove him incorrect.
And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”? You have ignored my rebuttal for several posts now. You don’t have to respond to them, but your outburst against me seems on the surface to be fueled by my refutation. I’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself. The frustration that I’m not in agreement with something that seems obvious to you. Otherwise your calls to ignore your statements seems ill fitting because I have in fact respond to you consistently and fully with each of our points. Had I missed a point, it was not my intention as I am trying to be care to do so.
Perhaps I’d you be straightforward with me about your problems with me, we can actually come to an understanding instead of this dance of accusations.
Autocorrect fucked that last statement. Perhaps you should be straightforward with me is what I attempted to say.
>>5641>I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
Okay, let's see then>You once again have ignored every statement I have made
What are you, a tranny? Do I have to affirm everything for you to feel safe?>why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Silly, its so you display to the audience.>If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Well, at the time I toom you as credibke. At the time, my request/prompt was sincere. As the exchange dragged on, it became for luls.
I do care what the opposing side has to say, so long as they are operating with intellectual integrity (read: feelings and preconceptions are irrelevant)>I have answered the doc
And I thank you for it>You dont seem to respond to them
Not in order, no>you zero in on my beliefs
The preexisting bias IS the most onerous,....>discrediting me as a presenter
Uh, Im not the one who presented you as a CREDIBLE prese ter, so,... ur bad>take down my arguments
Isnt that what Ive been doing?>you must believe in flat earth cuz u keep on
Is one to assume I believe in orthodoxy since I keep bothering (you)?>And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”?
Because I know you will. Im granting you largesse to do as you will. I am a humble God. lol, that was just to twist ur knickers>’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself
You're welcome to whatever interpretation is favorable. Not that you needed my blessings, what with your,... you know.>be straightforward
But that's simply no fun! I much prefer to dance cires around what my i terlocutor thinks I'm arguing, to better vrt them to candidly say things they wouldnt otherwise admit! Come on now, this isnt your first rodeo
Theme of your post:https://youtu.be/VlUnqTP4ltY>do I need to affirm everything
You need to address arguments if you hope to impress the viewer as you admit>it’s so you display your the audience
Perhaps I’m just too naive, but I recall avoiding critical arguments to be the mark of someone that can’t face the truth and has to play off of charisma to attempt to win. Consistently playing saying I’m not worth talking to doesnt so much in the charisma department for me. Maybe I’m just not seeing the grand strategy.
Meanwhile, I actually care for the debate. If anyone enjoys the argument in the meanwhile, that is a bonus. I’m not playing for the vindication of others.>at the time I took you as credible
You say that often I have noticed. You tend to default on the same question as well of will you renounce the Bible to justify cutting me out whenever you feel like it. How about you confront me despite my values?>intellectual integrity
I am fairly certain I have displayed my fair share of that by addressing each of your points without devolving to lambasting you for your own beliefs nor will I ignore you unless you are just giving me the go around and don’t have any intentions on discussing with me.>not in order
Or at all apparently. I am still waiting on how the examples I gave are not first person or how third person exclusively proves there was no eye witness testimony written.>I’m not presenting you as credible
Let’s take another quote.
“ Well, at the time I toom you as credibke.”
You took me as credible. You in fact did implicitly give me credibility in interacting with me and then you are attempting to say I am lying and deceiving in my debate.>the preexisting bias
Isn’t that the point of me honestly addressing that from the opening of the OP?>isn’t that what I’ve been doing
Dodgeball isn’t debate. My arguments stand as you have not questioned any of them, only my intent.>I know you will
Only if you give up actually trying. I have to work on my project and hobbies. You playing games won’t make it get done any faster.>I am granting you
Cool.>whatever interpretation is favorable
I prefer the one that is true. I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.>simply no fun>illegible text>what they wouldn’t otherwise admit
I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that. It isn’t really a game to get me to say what is on my mind. I will state it plain. I believe the Bible to be infallible. Should that end your interest in serious discussion, then I’ll see you around. Otherwise, you are spinning your wheels trying to manipulate someone that you can simply ask and it will be done.
Circles, Interlocutor, and get. Sorry. my mind can connect these things, so i dont bother to correct them.> I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
Lol, keep ttwlling yourself that. Pack that in next to >I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that.
Cuz goodie-boy Stix dont NEVER lie and deceive for his own (I kid, 'other anon's') benefit.
Why can't we have a civil thread without these asinine morons arguing about obscure interpretations of things? Can't we just talk about what the Bible actually says in written words here?
Well, at least you are being straightforward now with me. You are upset at me personally.
Well, I apologize for making you upset. Lying is wrong and I deserve what I get for it. If you are willing, I am open to make amends for previous actions. >>5647
It appears there are obstacles that need to be overcome first. Civility is being worked towards I think. Patience and we will be back on topic soon. Not like much was happening before today anyway.>>5648
Not the best time for a random clip. Thanks for having interest in the thread though anon.
I just want to study the scripture and ask the occasional question about syntax and verbage. All of this extraneous schizo stuff isn't helpful.
The title of this thread is misleading. Is this the Bible study thread, or is it Christianity-and-all-adjacent-religious-dogma general.
Have you ever asked such a question anon? I have tried a little exploration of Revelation and no such interaction has come for months. And yes, Christian doctrine is kind of included in Bible study as
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It’s going to come up, especially when the Bible itself is questioned to be even worth study. If you want a specific topic, please do introduce it to get back on track to how you want the thread to go.
April 23, 2022
Debate Hosted by Killstream - >Is Christianity a Hoax? "Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?" - Adam Green Vs. Dr. E. Michael Jones https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/emj-debate-720:4
I didn't watch it yet, but Michael Jones didn't re-post it in his channel. I wonder why.
While waiting for OP's take, there was a snippet early on that Im sure plenty could take umbrage with, paraphrasing:>"... unifying the jewish tradition of faith with the Greek tradition of reason, which forms the basis of Catholicism, and Catholicism is the onky true form of Christianity that exists in the world today." - E. Michael Jones @13:00-14:00
>>5655>A Neo Pagan Larper Vs a Cathlocuck Who Denys Race and the JQ on a revenge pornographers dying internet show hosted on a gay mexican catboy lovers' federally backed website
I'll pass, catholics should be burned at the stake.
Bart Ehrman vs. Jimmy Akin (? catholic) on the reliability of the new testament as a historical
I have a dilemma.
Should I post videos talking about freemasons and satanists subverting Christianity and The Bible in this bread, or should I create a new one?
Given the matter is broad and may require many videos and additional posts, I think is better to listen to the poners' opinion.
I don’t mind them here. Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.
Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious? Nothing like the flat earth thread, one hopes
Not according to The Bible.
No contest but tell him>>5691
that. Not trying to troll here, just using this as an opportunity to indicate that bible interpretations vary.
>>5688>Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.
I think there is plenty.>>5689>Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious?
Let's find out.>An Inconvenient History - (1:53:46 long)>The history and ideology of the occult societies that have been behind the events that have shaped our world and how they all stem from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I ask you to approach the information from a non-emotional point of view and understand that my goal is to share truth, not criticism. https://odysee.com/@probablyalexandra:6/an-inconvenient-history:b
I learned something.
Uh...she can't possibly be serious, right?
Not bad, she certainly did her homework and the overwhelming majority is agreeably consistent.
However, it's too early to give her a pass. She likes to build foundations of well-established concept, but sprinkle them with loose or unsubstantiated claims before returning to her foundation. Not saying she's wrong, just that one might find themselves saying "Wait, what? How do you go from here to there
? No, go back, how did you... Oh ffs".
Not a formal critique, but an observation.
As a cursory criticism, its funny that she avoids naming "Neuro-linguistic programming" being that she employs it at interval (assumed she doesnt, only watched 1/2).
She is MOSTLY spot on, but does make a few mistakes that are common, such as not affiliating the old testament with Judaism,... not sure how one neglects that credibly.
Elaborating a bit. I do not think constipated speech is anything else but an aesthetical addition for public speech. Certainly not a mind control technique.
Technically speaking, it's both. NLP is a tool for both effective speakers addressing a crowd/audience as well as individuals engaged in artifice. The presence of NLP techniques doesnt immediately mean nefarious intent, but any time there are NLP techniques, there IS the possibility of nefarious intent.
>Why Do Evangelicals Denounce Antisemitism? Do They Denounce Scripture?>“Bible-believing” Christians supposedly adhere to the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, including the “New Testament.” So here is what I want to know from “Christians:”>CHRISTIAN: >— Do you accept the Scriptures referred to by the Jews above?>— Or do you renounce them?>— Are you ashamed of the words of Jesus Christ?>— Do you cover up the Holy Scriptures with the traditions of men that Christ warned against? See Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13.>Make your decision.>Either stand proudly for the Scriptures above, or, forsake Jesus Christ.https://bloodandfaith.com/2022/06/27/if-converting-jews-is-antisemitic-why-do-christians-denounce-antisemitism/
Oh rly? Throw a Christian parade
I agree. The meme is targeting the maga normies.
Check Sodom and Gomorrah out.>WELCOME 2 THE END OF DAYS CHURCH OF ABOMINATIONS>2 Thessalonians 2>1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,>2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.>3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;>4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.>5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.https://www.bitchute.com/video/RUGQUJERQhxZ/
Absolutely pure filth inside the churches.
Quite literally the opposite, as He likes all the things so much that He wants to hold off total destruction as long as possible. This is a pattern throughout the Bible where even when people deserve destruction, you can turn it around by asking for forgiveness. Nineveh, for example, was going to be wiped out. They asked God to not do that and He said sure. All they had to do in return was not be so degenerate. This enraged the Jewish messenger, Jonah, to suicidal tendencies, telling God that he knew the plan was always to give them an out because He constantly loves everyone, even when they reject God.
God deliberately created a world full of things that do not like Him and now He pays the way at His own expense for them to be equal with Him on the throne in eternal forgiveness. How could this be happening to us?
Who is Lilith?
I'd ask Google but Google would give me a homosexual response.
A common name for women in the Philippines.
A succubus, the first one according to the source material. Supposedly Adam's first Wife before Eve. Some feminists have unironically embraced her as the very first feminist
. They see her as a proud women who rebelled to the patriarchy for the very first time.
Shit is particularly prevalent with Mexican feminists.
>>5822>Lilith the succubus
And what source material are you referring to?
Also, wheres the part where the priest is diddling the young boy?
It's also the name of a Darkstalkers character.>>5822
That sounds weird, where can I read more about this?
Jewish folklore? I dunno, am not particularly well-read on the subject. I just stated the general overview that femmes have about it.I mostly looked this up to borrow...I mean, take inspiration for my fic a while ago. (I was still writing down the timeline for when the Dazzlings show up.)>>5829>where can I read more about this?
Don't know tbh, sorry.
Although there's certainly more to it. There's a theory that suggests that Lilith is the so-called Queen Of Heaven
from the bible. And that she's present in every major culture around the world.
The virgin Mary is one such example, as some people refer to it as Queen of Heaven. There's also another Saint in Russia which is also called that way, but I don't quite remember which one.
It's all related to the sacred prostitutes
, words like "whore" actually had honorable, or positive meanings back then.
Even the word "puta", which is the Spanish word for whore, also had a positive meaning.
My memory is blurred and the video alongside its sources is gone. Am gonna try and find 'em when i have the time.
So your source is "IDK, I read it once lol"?
There's a good start. Take with a grain of salt, I haven't vetted the site/source
>>5831>So your source is "IDK, I read it once lol"?
I think it's more of...>I've sat down and talk to a lot of feminists A.K.A: blue-haired wamen>And this is what they believe in.
Anyways.<In the post-Biblical period, some ancient Jewish scholars took the stance that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21–22 must describe two separate events, since it appears that woman is created differently in these accounts.... “Considering every word of the Bible to be accurate and sacred, commentators needed a midrash or story to explain the disparity in the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. God creates woman twice—once with man, once from man’s rib—so there must have been two women. The Bible names the second woman Eve; Lilith was identified as the FIRST in order to complete the story.” Accordingly, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and an unnamed woman (Lilith); Genesis 2:7 gives more details of Adam’s creation; and Genesis 2:21–22 describes the creation of Eve from Adam.
Yup, that's the stance these women have taken as well.
The succubus part comes from other Jewish sources, outside of the bible, as all Succubus are believed to be descendants of Lilith.
Anything about the sacred prostitutes bit?
The name Lilith comes from mesopotamian folklore, referring to a Babylonian demon/vampire/fairy that locals spoke of in ballads and whatnot. The name was picked up through cultural diffusion, and attributed to the unnamed first woman.
Kay...Still calling it Lilith as it changes little to nothing.