"False Prophet" Contradictions of Revelations 3:14-16 and 1:7

According to the Message of the “Son of man” to the Seventh Church in the Revelation of John 3:14-16, there is no such thing as a ‘middle ground’ between cold and hot; there is no such thing as a ‘middle ground’ between Truth and falsehood; and there is no such thing as a ‘middle ground’ between the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) and the ‘fallen’ consciousness…

Which means that there is no such thing as a ‘middle ground’ between Revelations received from God and the thoughts of the ‘thinker’.

(Similarly, there is no ‘middle ground’ with regards to the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either they were written by someone who received both the Vision of the “Son of man”—or the “Vision of Knowledge”—and the Revelation of the “resurrection”; or they were written by someone afflicted with manic-depressive psychosis and delusions of grandeur. But, of course, the ‘official’ researchers of the Dead Sea Scrolls have taken the ‘middle position’: that the Thanksgiving Hymns are ‘interesting’ as “literature”; when, in fact, the only reasonable conclusion is that they were written by Jesus.)

And, yet, that is precisely the assumption that underlies the ENTIRE theological profession; both the paid theologians and the ‘free lance’ theologians: that both the interpretations of the Revelations and the doctrines of the theologians—all based upon the thoughts of the ‘thinker’—should be considered as being, for all practical purposes, more or less equivalent to the Revelations themselves. After all, that is the reason that theologians spend so many hours reading the Revelations and the writings of other theologians, and writing their own books on theology: to create an ‘interpretation’ of those Revelations which is acceptable to the greatest number of other ‘thinker’-theologians; or, for example, the greatest number of sheeple on ATS.

In other words, the Revelations themselves really mean nothing at all until they have been interpreted by the theologians, and the theologians have had the opportunity to ‘vote’ amongst themselves as to whether or not those interpretations are accurate interpretations or not. And, obviously, no interpretation of the Revelations will be considered accurate which does not meet with the approval of thousands upon thousands of other ‘thinker’-theologians.

So, to begin with, any attempt at interpreting the Revelation of John by someone who has not, himself or herself, received both the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of the “resurrection” is a flagrant and specific contradiction of the Message of the “Son of man” to the Seventh Church—not that this will make any difference whatsoever to either those whose salaries depend upon vomiting up such interpretations and doctrines of demons, or who hack up such “frogs” (Revelations 16:14) for nothing more than reasons of ego gratification.

Now, with regards to Revelations 1:7, the “false prophet” Christian theologians consider this as an event in the space-time reality, having no Knowledge that this is a description of the Vision of the “Son of man” because they have not received the Vision of the “Son of man”. And, it is upon this lack of Knowledge that Revelations 1:7 refers to the Vision of the “Son of man”, that the “false prophet” Christian theologians assert that Jesus will return ‘riding a white horse out of the sky’—a florid psychotic delusion which is ‘validated’ by their failure to understand that the Doctrine of “resurrection” is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

But, as is stated in the Book of Daniel 12:10 “the wicked will never understand” (never, as in never, ever, ever, ever; not even in ten thousand lifetimes) these things. Only “the wise will understand” because the Truth about both the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of the “resurrection” will have been ‘kept secret and Sealed until the time of the End.’ (the Book of Daniel 12:4 & 9)

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil

"You are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot"- Revelation ch3 v16

a)This is a clear statement that the Laodiceans are actually occupying the middle ground between "hot" and "cold".
By what twisting of language can you transform a statement that says "you are on the middle ground" into "the middle ground does not exist"?

b) The comment about being "luke warm" is normally, and very plausibly, understood as a reference to their commitment and enthusiasm, which is not absolutely nothing but not as strong as it should be.
That is how it is possible for the Laodiceans to be "half-way" between good and bad.

If he had been talking about doctrine, then, yes, there is no half-way point between truth and untruth. As a customer used to say to me in my barkeeping days, when I gave him his change (the joke got boring after a while) "well, it's right- but only just!".
Although, even there, it is possible to be "right" on one point and "wrong" on others, thus making it possible for teaching to be "partly true".

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
And, it is upon this lack of Knowledge that Revelations 1:7 refers to the Vision of the “Son of man”, that the “false prophet” Christian theologians assert that Jesus will return ‘riding a white horse out of the sky’—

You are quite right to observe that not all the images in Revelation are meant to be taken literally.
My own interpretations take most of them non-literally.
In fact I'm not sure there is any theologian who actually takes the "white horse" detail literally. So in harping on that particular point, you may be, like Don Quixote, "tilting at windmills".
However, Jesus himself, in the gospels, refers to his "coming", which indicates that it will be happening one way or another.

My own interpretation of Revelation ch1 v7 can be found at the attached location;
Fear Not

reply to post by DISRAELI

All of this is not nearly as complicated as you would have it.

The consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27) has a specific MEMORY of having been Created 'by and in the image of God', as well as memories of previous lives.

If you have no specific Memory of having been Created by God--that is, if the only way that you believe that you have been Created 'by and in the image of God' is because you have READ it in some book, or because someone has TOLD you--the REASON for that is your consciousness has NOT been Created 'by and in the image of God'.

The consciousness of the "self" is created through the 'movement' of self-reflection; whereas the consciousness of the 'thinker' is created through the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'.

Those dimensions of consciousness, obviously, can have NO Memory of having been Created 'by and in the image of God'...

Because they WEREN'T.

So, you deny that there is any such thing as memories of previous lives; you deny that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; you are incapable of recognizing that this is what Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed were referring to...

What that MEANS is that your consciousness is NOT the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'.

What that MEANS is that your experiences of life occur from within the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

This is not in any way complicated.

This is a no-brainer.

This is not in any way a personal attack.

This is a Doctrinal issue regarding the meaning of the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection".

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by DISRAELI

All of this is not nearly as complicated as you would have it.

Where do I use this word "complicated"?
In what sense is your own outline "not complicated"?
I made no comments, in my own post, about the doctrines of the resurrection.
Keeping to the topic, I was questioning your interpretation of Revelation ch 3 vv14-16.
I still maintain, for the reasons I gave above, that your interpretation of that passage is inaccurate.

Revelation 11:11
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

this friendly reminder of a real resurrection brought to you today on 01/11/10

reply to post by iamnot

Originally posted by DISRAELI Keeping to the topic, I was questioning your interpretation of Revelation ch 3 vv14-16. I still maintain, for the reasons I gave above, that your interpretation of that passage is inaccurate.

There is a difference between an interpretation and an explanation.

An interpretation originates in the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

An explanation can only originate in Revelations themselves; and from a different dimension of consciousness than either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

And with regards to your advertising your thread on your interpretation of the Revelation of John--a moderator has, by the way, told me that I CANNOT do this--fear is a principal concern of the consciousness of the 'thinker'; Freud, after all, saying that the "ego"/'thinker' originates in the fear of death.

So, we have "beast of the sea" politicians attempting to terrify the beJeezus out of people with their 'war on terror'; and then we have the Christian theologians telling people that they need not fear at all since they will be 'Raptured'.

This is like "bad cop and good cop".

The duality becomes "fear" and "not fear".

This is why the Christian theologians make so much MONEY. They convince people to believe Christian theology, and to say yes to Jesus so that they will NOT suffer the terrors of the 'tribulation'.

And where is Truth in all of this?

No one cares.

What is most important to the politicians is that people be terrified; and what is most important to the religious 'authorities' are the doctrines which convince people NOT to be terrified.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
This is why the Christian theologians make so much MONEY. They convince people to believe Christian theology, and to say yes to Jesus so that they will NOT suffer the terrors of the 'tribulation'.

There is a saying in my church (Methodist) that the one book of the Bible you NEVER preach on is Revelation, and, in all my years of going there, I can only remember one sermon on that book (ironically, a few months ago, though it had no "doom and gloom" in it.)

In addition, in all my years of attending Catholic Mass, I've yet to hear a homily regarding the "end times", and only rarely (maybe one a year?) hear a reading from Revelation as part of Mass.

So, there you've got anecdotal evidence of the biggest church on Earth, and one of the major Protestant branches -- lots of money generated, yet they seem to be able to stay away from fear mongering on the "terrors of the 'tribulation'."

On the other hand, I've been seeing dire proclamations of the end of the world from television preachers since I started paying attention to them in the 1980s, but to call their sort "theologians" is beyond a stretch, and their target market doesn't seem to be the discerning or theologically oriented type of Christian. Constantly declaring that the end is near is no appeal to theology, it's an appeal to desperation.

Beyond that, does it not occur to you that you, Michael, are also fear mongering, with your vague "the end is near" proclamations, particularly when you have no reason to believe that they actually are? Jack van Impe, nitwit that he is, is after your money, but it scarcely makes you more righteous when you do exactly what he does, though for attention, rather than coin.