Revelation's John

Synonym style translation:

John 5:36
But I have greater witness than that of John:

Antonym style translation:

John 5:36
But I lack lesser witness than that of *A female recieved name*:

^^Greater witness outside the bible is what it means because John's Revelation was to be the last book to the books of the what's known as the bible. How so? Opposites. Gen is opposite Rev in what's being implied, is it not? The beginning of time is opposite the ending of time, is it not? So therefore you see how Rev is to be the last book whether or not gnostic books were to be included within or not. If the gnostic books were to be included none of them would be the last book to the bible.

Anyhow, who (who in all) is the greater witness?

Nastradomus?... 2pac?... Me (Mabus)?... You?... Other? (Please specify)

"That" of John?! Is it implying John's book?...John's followers who in all did read his book?...Or other? (Please specify)

In my view the greater witness (who in all was/is) had/has nothing to do with adding to the religious followed books. No, the greater witness would have a different kind of work to follow.

Think about Nastradomus, 2pac, and Me (Mabus)...

^^Had to offer a different work, did they not?

As for me, I didnt add to what was already there underlying in the books to the bible and in certain of Nastradomus' q-things and in certain of 2pac's lyrics, concerning words in their antonyms. So greater than "that" of John can be "this" of John. "This" as in the whole antonym translation side I been the founder of.

Religious sects followers who have pribe would refuse the antonym side. Why? Because greater witness exposes and emplodes all things of deception placed upon man.

^^^Those who disreguard what the very Jesus they claim they believe came in the flesh said ("I have greater witness than that of John") are the kind that pick and choose what to follow as half-truthers and hypocrites and the very unbelieving. If you are found an unbeliever in the very religion you claim or to the very bible you claim you follow, then you are in love with a lie within yourself. If you are in love with a lie I can bring it forth in you so that you are revealed as actually the devil (the wicked one). And so no one is fooling any greater witness from the front or from the back or from the part or from the whole.

The rest of you who are not the devil should become a greater witness if you love FULL truth.

Those who hate the highest hate parts in the truth so that they pick and choose what and how and when it benefits them selfishly and pribefully. Those with contempt in their hearts about any truthful points made by another are all the devil. Remember, a greater witness already knew a typical devil by their fruit.

No one can topple the truth I type in any thread with a straight face.

reply to post by Mabus

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here? But, I have to ask this: You are aware that the "John" spoken of in John 5:36 is John the Baptist and NOT the Apostle John, aren't you?

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by Mabus

 

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here? But, I have to ask this: You are aware that the "John" spoken of in John 5:36 is John the Baptist and NOT the Apostle John, aren't you?

John the baptist baptized and witnessed (bared record says in John). You have to pay attention to the whole context.

Synonym translation:

Revelation 1
1The 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:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

^^Bared record is what the John mentioned in John did, is it not?

What makes you think they are different? How did Rev's John (called a servant how in the Gospel they are as servants not greather than their lord. And were called friends) know there even was a Lord?

You would have had to have been a close freind of your Lord you bared record of to know surely it's the Lord's angel sent.

reply to post by Mabus


err....No...

John the Baptist was beheaded prior to the crucifixion of Jesus...

Matt 14:10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.


The Apostle John always referred to himself in the 'Gospel of John' as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by Mabus

 

err....No...

John the Baptist was beheaded prior to the crucifixion of Jesus...

Matt 14:10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.


The Apostle John always referred to himself in the 'Gospel of John' as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

Time beheaded doesnt tell you that that John isnt the author of Rev. Before beheaded what makes you think that that John didnt have time to have written Rev? Got any biblical proof?

And if he was the one Jesus loved, then wouldnt he surely be the one to get the Revelation from the Lord's angel to write?

It only makes sense.

He was mentioned beheaded in Matt, Mark, and Luke even though John is the last gospel book. Such indicates that there was more from John during his time alive to have for review that wasnt put in order by his life in context. You may think just because Rev is the final book, and John got stated beheaded in Gospel books (which arent as the final book), that it must mean Rev is not that John, but that is not correct. It is that only John. Dont let the order of the books in the bible decieve you. The order has no reguard for anyone other than the message (testimony of the Lord from beginning to end).

A thing to note is that Jesus had more than a legion of angels that could do anything at any time. Meaning Jesus could have been alive and sent his angel to John before John was brought to the point of getting beheaded. In Rev it didnt point out Jesus was going to return. No, it pointed out Jesus was going to come. Come doesnt imply return as if Jesus was gone yet. So think hard about those angels.




[edit on 8-6-2008 by Mabus]

reply to post by Mabus


Are you saying that Revelation was written BEFORE the crucifixion of Jesus?

WOW!

I've never heard THAT one before!

Got any biblical proof?

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was (not WILL DIE...but WAS...PAST TENSE) dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Furthermore, I find it odd that Jesus said to write to CHURCHES (that hadn't even been established yet) in the first 3 chapters of Revelation.

"Churches"? There WAS no Church until Matt 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will (future...soon...it DOES NOT EXIST YET!) build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But John the Baptist was beheaded 2 chapters earlier...

reply to post by Mabus

And if he was the one Jesus loved, then wouldnt he surely be the one to get the Revelation from the Lord's angel to write?

Yes, John the apostle received the Revelation from Jesus. He was the one "whom Jesus loved" and was the one lying on Jesus' breast in John 13....which was awhile after John the Baptist was beheaded.

Furthermore, John is still alive here, just before Jesus was crucified:
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

John (the APOSTLE) is ALSO clearly alive AFTER the crucifixion and AFTER the resurrection.

John the BAPTIST is beheaded a LONG time before that.

John

reply to post by Mabus

Got any biblical proof?

This should do...and be final. (Parentheses are mine)

Mark 1:14-19 Now after that John (the BAPTIST) was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John (the APOSTLE) his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.

Two "Johns"...different Johns.

John the BAPTIST was beheaded, John the APOSTLE wrote the Gospel of John, 3 epistles and Revelation.

Are we through (done) with this? I'm starting to get a little weary of this topic. I've provided Biblical proof. I've adequately proved my point.

reply to post by PreTribGuy



Was mean dead? You mean to tell me there is no everlasting eternal life in at least the Lord? If you put everything in context you would understand that "was" doesnt imply dead and gone. Whatever/whoever was should still be.

You knew where the T.V. "was" in your home? Or are you loosing memory to have to know where the T.V. is in each time as if you have to search for it?

Also if it's I will build "my" church, then it means his church is already in existence. The thing is you can have built something that is already in existence of yours, can you not? Can a rich person not build his fastfood resturaunt that is already in existence? Of course the person can if they wanted to. The fastfood resturaunt is apart of a franchise with its resturaunts in different location already built as a chain.

And again, you leave out the angel(s) of the Lord. An angel of the Lord could have already informed John about the 7 churches which is clearly different than my church (implying one, not 7). John wasnt informed to build the 7 churches. Nor was John informed to build that "my church". So you using churches and church wont fly with prooving John the baptist as not the John who wrote Rev.

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by Mabus

 

Got any biblical proof?

This should do...and be final. (Parentheses are mine)

Mark 1:14-19 Now after that John (the BAPTIST) was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John (the APOSTLE) his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.

Two "Johns"...different Johns.

John the BAPTIST was beheaded, John the APOSTLE wrote the Gospel of John, 3 epistles and Revelation.

Are we through (done) with this? I'm starting to get a little weary of this topic. I've provided Biblical proof. I've adequately proved my point.

What makes you think that the John in...

John 5:36
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

....isn't the one who wrote Rev then? What makes you think the John being discribed as a brother of James is not that John in John 5:36 then?

I will say this, that John described as a brother isnt the one who wrote Rev. They hold the actual John I'm talking about as a prophet:

Matthew 21:26
But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

^^Which John? John the baptist, not the apostle.

Why does Rev's cover page say St John "the divine"? Isnt a prophet considered divine? Why wasnt Rev considered a Gospel book if it were simply by an apostle? Answer me that.

reply to post by Mabus


This will be the last post, from me, on this thread:

You knew where the T.V. "was" in your home? Or are you loosing memory to have to know where the T.V. is in each time as if you have to search for it?

2 Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

I am (somewhat) sorry I even participated in this thread.

^^You are worn out already? Or, too much on point in truth by me that you couldn't find flaws in what I revealed? In other words, is this your way of saying I was indeed accurate in truth as it turns out?

Sorry is as an admission that the other stands correct in the context in which you put it at this point.

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by Mabus

 

I am (somewhat) sorry I even participated in this thread.

most people feel that way after talking to him too long lol

Originally posted by Mabus

Sorry is as an admission that the other stands correct in the context in which you put it at this point.

its so ironic you come on a site that "denies ignorance"

you points are so off they arent even worth arguing. its like watching the black knight monty python, except its for real.

he cuts off all the limbs to your argument, you call it a simple flesh would.

he walks away because he realizes how stupid this baseless debate is, you call him a yellow bellied pansey and threaten to gnaw at his ankles...

really, your threads do incite quite abit of entertainment.

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by Mabus

 

I am (somewhat) sorry I even participated in this thread.

most people feel that way after talking to him too long lol

Originally posted by Mabus

Sorry is as an admission that the other stands correct in the context in which you put it at this point.

its so ironic you come on a site that "denies ignorance"

you points are so off they arent even worth arguing. its like watching the black knight monty python, except its for real.

he cuts off all the limbs to your argument, you call it a simple flesh would.

he walks away because he realizes how stupid this baseless debate is, you call him a yellow bellied pansey and threaten to gnaw at his ankles...

really, your threads do incite quite abit of entertainment.

How you look putting words of assumption in another's mouth? You cant speak for anyone except yourself. Why you took it upon yourself to say what you say here is only in contempt and pribe category. If you feel hurt by what isnt even to you that was said, then you have some type of problem obviously.

What is your problem with me? You dont like it when I seem, to you, that I trumped someone flawlessly? That would be petty, you know?

Originally posted by Mabus
What is your problem with me? You dont like it when I seem, to you, that I trumped someone flawlessly? That would be petty, you know?

its not pride or contempt. and i dont have a problem with you.

i have pity.

pity because you whole heartedly believe that you have ¨trumped someone flawlessly¨ when in fact you did nothing of the sort.

just because someone stops argueing with you, doesnt mean that they admit your right, or that your logic is flawless. it means they stop argueing with you.

^^Ha! Caught ya! I basicaly said "seem" to you I trumpted someone, and it was in question form. Looks like I brought your true colors forth cause I aint say I trumpted anyone. So I was right that it was how it seemed to you to make you want to say what you said to me.

No one can topple truth I lay down. Truth has a funny way of bringing forth the kinds of persons amongst.

Originally posted by Mabus
^^Ha! Caught ya!

bravo...