Revelation 17...???

a reply to: Joecroft

Evidently we have a very different perspective on Isaiah.

Lots of his verses clearly refer to this era of the END TIMES.

I rarely play "parse the definitions" games.

a reply to: Akragon

I grow weary of that old blather.

The fact is, we have sooooo many fragments from the time of the lives of those witnessing the events concerned, we are darn functionally close to the original documents.

Thinking otherwise, imho, is an abject REFUSAL to take God at His word for other agenda reasons.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Akragon

I grow weary of that old blather.

The fact is, we have sooooo many fragments from the time of the lives of those witnessing the events concerned, we are darn functionally close to the original documents.

Thinking otherwise, imho, is an abject REFUSAL to take God at His word for other agenda reasons.

Well... no we don't

Virtually nothing exists from the first century... Nothing... no fragments, no texts... nothing excluding perhaps a recent find in an ancient mask which is apparently dated to approx. 95ish ad... haven't heard much from that discovery lately... And even that is still a stretch...

Before which the earliest "fragment" we have was from the gospel of John, about the size of a credit card... which is from the mid second century.... and is also a copy of a copy etc...

Thinking otherwise is denying what pretty much all scholars know as fact... aside from the fundy's of course who will say pretty much anything to reinforce their beliefs.

Grow tired IF you will... matters not to me

Lots of his verses clearly refer to this era of the END TIMES.

Said every Christian since the beginning of said religion

a reply to: windword

I have never had much respect for the perspectives which seem to cast a wide net to drag up every tiny quibble possible to avoid taking God's Word as authentic.

He has not been slack guarding His Word--particularly in terms of the essentials.

There's abundant evidence for this whether via folks like Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, The journalist converted not that long ago via a serious study of the Scriptures and how they came down to us . . . etc. etc. etc.

Those who have taken the Bible literally have always done far better at understanding God and finding Him intervening in their lives similarly than those who have fancied themselves smarter and more clever than those with Child-like faith.

Dr Chuck Missler's youtube about the secret treasures in the Bible is one example of the incredible verifications within the Bible of its authenticity.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by Joecroft
Can you please move away from this whole “we” thing, it’s not getting us anywhere…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
As long as your primary question is being phrased as "Why does God want US to give up OUR kingdom", then we CANNOT get away from it.

But people follow their leaders and Kings, so effectively and collectively it is “Us” and “We”, because “we” go along with it…

Just because I use the word “we” does not mean I’m with the Beast agenda, that’s an incorrect inference…

And like I said in my last reply, one can say the Whole world is being deceived by something, whilst not including themselves along with that deception. It’s really that simple…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I certainly don't understand why you should be so stubbornly insistent on using the word, when the text says "they".

I’m not saying that that verse says “we”, it clearly says “they” but in the context of the entire chapter it is “we” collectively…IMO but that doesn’t mean I’m with the Beast system Agenda!!!


Try looking at it this way…

According to the context you’re saying that the word “they” is just referring to the Kings…fair enough

I'm saying that according to overall context, that the word “they” is referring to the Kings, the Harlot, and the people and nations that are being deceived…IMO


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
Nice thread Joe; am enjoying the banter.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

So you have counter sources to the NT books that can be dated to the time of the originals that have a variant message to what the NT books propose ? this I have to see :>)

What? I'm saying is that the gospels now known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were anonymous works.

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous. The Gospel of John is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle. During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Akragon

Originally posted Akragon
Sounds like the church(s) of Christianity today...

Which part…you mean the “The Apocalypse of Peter”, right…?

Funny thing is, I’ve never just sat down and absorbed what’s written in there…Never even noticed it before…until today…


- JC

a reply to: windword
I find this 'anonymous status' of the sacred books (NT) highly suspicious and perhaps prosecuteable if a crime can be found committed. One or more billion Bibles (OT as well) falsely sold as the truth/fantasy fiction/romance novel/poetry? Knuckles need to be cracked and bloodied in order to find the truth.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Akragon

Originally posted Akragon
Sounds like the church(s) of Christianity today...

Which part…you mean the “The Apocalypse of Peter”, right…?

Funny thing is, I’ve never just sat down and absorbed what’s written in there…Never even noticed it before…until today…


- JC

Yup...

But others shall change from evil words and misleading mysteries. Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the truth is theirs alone.

And when I said these things, the Saviour said, "I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge."

"For many will accept our teaching in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment, i.e., the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration.

And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law.

theres a ton of stuff like that in the gnostic texts that seem to point directly to what was becoming Christianity...

Even with a glance over many texts in the library one can clearly see why they were such a threat

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted vethumanbeing
Nice thread Joe; am enjoying the banter

Well, it beats TV and the Beast Agenda lol

Nice of you to join us…

Glad you’re enjoying it…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted
Nice thread Joe; am enjoying the banter

Well, it beats TV and the Beast Agenda lo
Nice of you to join us…
Glad you’re enjoying it…- JC

RFT should not be included in the 'off topic' forums; which makes it harder to find by one click. I have an idea about the female form described in the 17th book of Rev and what it is intended to mean. This has to do with intent (of the system in place) and the nourishment or the selling of the nourishment the system produces.

a reply to: windword

So do you have prior witnesses to any of the NT text ? Or is all you have is later text saying that the first witnesses were wrong ? ......Can the later text be the base on which Christian faith and doctrine stands ? I know that for some it is ..

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted vethumanbeing
RFT should not be included in the 'off topic' forums; which makes it harder to find by one click. I have an idea about the female form described in the 17th book of Rev and what it is intended to mean.
This has to do with intent (of the system in place) and the nourishment or the selling of the nourishment the system produces.

Well the “word” was symbolic with the bread of life; You speak the word, and then ones takes it into oneself as nourishment for the soul…

I’m guessing you’re idea is the opposite of that type of nourishment…the bad kind…but how does the female form fit into it…?


- JC

originally posted by: Akragon
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Akragon

Akragon: theres a ton of stuff like that in the gnostic texts that seem to point directly to what was becoming Christianity...
Even with a glance over many texts in the library one can clearly see why they were such a threat

One can either be angry with the early Gnostics for giving away the farm (attracted unneeded attention to these truths) that were then quashed by authorities within .gov and the religious communities; or have relief "the best idea form won out". Not for me; I see it as a huge blunder by early Gnostics showing their hand too early; thinking the TRUTH *as righteous* would win out regardless. Its not over yet; Gnostic truths may still win out; I am all for the Arcane Wisdoms to be revealed.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

theres a ton of stuff like that in the gnostic texts that seem to point directly to what was becoming Christianity

Now tell me if "what was becoming Christianity " refers to what was already Christianity prior to that text or should we look else where then the text prior to that one ....?

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted vethumanbeing
RFT should not be included in the 'off topic' forums; which makes it harder to find by one click. I have an idea about the female form described in the 17th book of Rev and what it is intended to mean.
This has to do with intent (of the system in place) and the nourishment or the selling of the nourishment the system produces.

Well the “word” was symbolic of with the bread if life; You speak the word, and then ones takes it into oneself as nourishment for the soul…
I’m guessing you’re idea is the opposite of that type of nourishment…the bad kind…but how does the female form fit into it…?

This a "who forgives God scenario". Someone set up a system we all co-exist within as material/spiritual beings. Within this system are built in gains and losses (consumption=growth and loss of life by others). Wave lengths describe energy forms that can be consumed by those designed to eat those provided to (the higher pecking order). Our emotional output is the food produced; it is collected and sold. This is why Karma is such a terrible thing; roped in and stuck in the hamster wheel of reincarnation producing continuous negative energy consumed by our creator beings. Why negative? not sure, but is on the menu. Not sure the love waveform is digestible by those evil beings controlling this pattern.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Dcopymope

No, Israel is the woman who gives birth to the man child, the whore is a different woman. There are only two. The book of Revelation is distinctly Jewish after chapter 4:1

Revelation makes no distinction between the woman who gave birth to Jesus and the Whore that rides on the back of the beast, unless you can cite the scripture stating otherwise I have no reason to believe your assertions. Show me scripture stating that the woman that fled into the wilderness in Revelation 12 is not the same woman that is also described as that which dwells in the wilderness in Revelation 17.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: vethumanbeing

theres a ton of stuff like that in the gnostic texts that seem to point directly to what was becoming Christianity

Now tell me if "what was becoming Christianity " refers to what was already Christianity prior to that text or should we look else where then the text prior to that one ....?

Christianity was never to become a Dogma to be worshiped by *the people* and regulated by others in power. It was supposed to be a Consciousness Shift that was "Christlike" in meaning (the major tenant): treat others as you would yourself in fairness empathy and compassion. The other more difficult "The kingdom of God resides within you" is not as easy. This is about self exploration/meditation and is Eastern in thought. It also can suggest the creator of mankind shared its own DNA makeup to create a human specie.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You are assuming that the Creator has DNA ....word on the street is that He is Sprite .