Christians!!!…Why do you base your beliefs, theology and doctrines, around the “Book of Revelati

reply to post by Joecroft


The examples are the books themselves... Simply read any passage where Jesus is speaking and compare it with Anything from Revelation... its quite obvious.

As for the gnostic texts... i believe many of them are the words of Jesus as well... likely other followers of his that passed down his lessons through many generations. Words that were meant to be oral tradition more then textual.

Most of them date to later then the 4th century but i think its very possible the teachings were kept alive

Thomas is a glareing example... The lessons within that book parallel what is found within the gospels... but also give many deeper meanings to a lot of his lessons.

I find the gnostic scriptures to be very dark... a more spiritual outlook on many things as compared to the bible

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Sure...

i've studied the bible from back to front... inside and out... but these days i only focus on where His words are located.

The OT is useless... my thread on that issue which dropped off the boards right quick
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IF you read the words that came directly from his mouth... Those words sound/read nothing like revelation...

Jesus had a certain way of speaking... just as anyone else does... that style is not found anywhere else within the bible...

And of course this is assuming the writers of the gospels wrote down what he said word for word...

Revelation... when read sounds nothing like the way Jesus spoke... its a completely different style.

So the conclusions we get from this are... Either John wrote down his own words in Revelation... and attributed them to Jesus...

OR

Jesus came to john... and changed his way of speaking...

Which is more likely?

When Jesus was given back unto his role above, his speech and style of speaking changed. Emotions and the such left him and are now above. This happens when anyone from above comes here and goes back. The speech and style is back to the original self as before. His style of speaking that we know of down here is gathered from his human side. He later came to John to give insight for Revelations. John was also brought above to see the things of above as well, many things in which he could not speak of.

reply to post by jhill76


So basically when he returned home... He lost his eloquence with words?

Hard to believe my friend

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by jhill76

 

So basically when he returned home... He lost his eloquence with words?

Hard to believe my friend

Yes, this would be hard to grasp. His eloquence would not be lost per se. But, the way he speaks has changed.

He learned to speak this way here, because it is what is understood here. But, above he speaks differently. Just as when he goes to the other places, he speaks to them in a way they understand. It is adaptation so to speak. He is more above than he is here. So the speech will fit the style of above, than it would fit here. Especially, when speaking to just John. His speech will be back unto him, when he returns.

reply to post by Akragon


Thanks for pointing out your observations.

That's something that I've never noticed before, but then again (as a Christian), I've always thought of Jesus as being God, so maybe that's why.

reply to post by Akragon


After what JHill76 said, do you see Jesus speaking more like God of the Old Testament when you read Revelation, or do you see it being different altogether?

Matthew 5reply to post by jhill76


Unfortunatly i have no way of proving what you say..... and if you are who you say you are, who am i to argue...

What you're saying is revelation is how he speaks after his death...

So what happened to "as above so below"?

Why is it his words within the 4 books are beautifully phrased... I would even say brilliant... or poetry.

And revelation is a mess in comparison...

Example... Revelation 2 vs. Matthew 5

Both are supposedly words of Jesus.... Matthew 5 is beautifully written while Revelation 2 is a sloppy mess in comparison... He speaks of hateing this and that... and even killing people

I don't buy it brother...

Revelation is garbage in my humble opinion

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Akragon

 

Thanks for pointing out your observations.

That's something that I've never noticed before, but then again (as a Christian), I've always thought of Jesus as being God, so maybe that's why.

Perhaps... but im not going to get into that discussion... He was clearly not God...

After what JHill76 said, do you see Jesus speaking more like God of the Old Testament when you read Revelation, or do you see it being different altogether?

Different all together... The God of the OT was an imposter by the way...

Both of these beliefs are purely christian thought... And i'll leave you to believe what you will... But i'll have no part in either premise

reply to post by Akragon


He speaks this way, because this is how he originally speaks above. I will explain more in a minute when I get back.

reply to post by Akragon


Well, this would definitely explain why you're not fond of the Old Testament or the book of Revelation:

Of the 404 verses of the book of Revelation, 278 are based directly on Old Testament language and thought.

There is an underlying assumption of continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church reflected in the statements and language of the book of Revelation. What happened to God's faithful servants in Old Testament times is happening now to God's faithful servants in New Testament times. And the same God who delivered his people then will deliver them now again.

Here's an interesting comment from the article to examine further:

Passages in the book of Revelation which call for or describe God's vengeance on the enemies of his faithful people (as 6:9-10; 11:18; 14:9-20; 16:5-7; 18) caution against being too hasty in assigning Old Testament imprecations (as Psa. 58:6- 11; 79:5-7, 12; 139:19-22) a "sub-Christian" status. This whole question needs a careful, sober, scholarly examination. 19

www.studyjesus.com...

reply to post by Akragon


Revelations is mixed with truth and thoughts of the writer, which was thought to come from above. In the end, the absolute truth will be given to all.

This is what happens when you go above, after death. Many are shocked that they continue on living after death. They are taken to debrief, led by Uriel. This is where you go to give account of what happened here and are given details about what are the parameters of above. Many still think you are to: breathe, speak the same way, eat, etc. When you are above, the language, style of speaking and the such are all different.

*To be very precise: The arcs (they come in human form as well, one is very well known to our present day), and Jesus go to a different debrief than the others.

Jesus words are of his own in Revelations. But, you are hearing from the Jesus that is not in human form anymore, you are now hearing from his true form, if that makes sense. When his words were given in the gospels, this was him influenced with his human side as well.

Above, they are more direct. It is to the point, and sometimes harsh as others put it. When above spends time down here, the speaking changes to adapt to said person they are speaking to.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Akragon

 

I've always thought of Jesus as being God, so maybe that's why.

Jesus is his own person. He is the only one ever to have the spirit of God totally in him, without another spirit.

Jesus = Himself + Spirit of God
Man = Himself Split (Front side, controls the body, and the spirit, or soul) + A piece of the Holy Spirit, if he made the choice

Originally posted by Akragon

Different all together... The God of the OT was an imposter by the way...

I'll say that what man has today about God in the OT, is of what man coined God to be. Even in the NT, there are quite a few misconceptions about him. Mainly due to the fault of the writer, not writing what was given to them at the time it was given.

reply to post by Joecroft


We do not base it on Revelation. Revelation is an amalgamation of many of the old prophets scriptures. It is also based on the book of Matthew, in which many of the events in Revelation are prophecied by Christ himself. We base our beliefs on Christ and his promises.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Akragon

 

Well, this would definitely explain why you're not fond of the Old Testament or the book of Revelation:

Of the 404 verses of the book of Revelation, 278 are based directly on Old Testament language and thought.

There is an underlying assumption of continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church reflected in the statements and language of the book of Revelation. What happened to God's faithful servants in Old Testament times is happening now to God's faithful servants in New Testament times. And the same God who delivered his people then will deliver them now again.

Here's an interesting comment from the article to examine further:

Passages in the book of Revelation which call for or describe God's vengeance on the enemies of his faithful people (as 6:9-10; 11:18; 14:9-20; 16:5-7; 18) caution against being too hasty in assigning Old Testament imprecations (as Psa. 58:6- 11; 79:5-7, 12; 139:19-22) a "sub-Christian" status. This whole question needs a careful, sober, scholarly examination. 19

www.studyjesus.com...

There ya go.

This is it right here. Revelation is based on both the OT an NT prophecies Yeshua prophecied. It is scriptural because it matches the Torah and Tenach and as i stated above, an amalgamation of prophecies and warnings from the Almighty as far back as Moses himself.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

. . . based on both the OT an NT prophecies Yeshua prophecied.

You are worshiping a false god of your own invention.
Whoever you think you are talking about does not exist.
You are following a myth made up by people out to destroy our true God, Jesus, who is god by right of being the son of God who is the father of all.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Spoken like someone who truly has a problem with Hebrews...

as Yeshua IS the Hebrew name for Jesus.

Different names and languages don't make him different than who Lonewolf has always claimed him to be. The savior of man who died on the cross to provide that salvation.

reply to post by Deetermined

as Yeshua IS the Hebrew name for Jesus.

I am not aware of any evidence that Jesus had a "Hebrew" name.
And if he did, it would not be that.
People in the time of Jesus did not speak Old Testament Hebrew unless they were a rabbi and were reading from the scroll.
There were people in Syria who spoke Syrian, otherwise known as Aramaic. You can see in Acts, a story of someone being described as speaking Hebrew, but it meant someone speaking Aramaic in a Palestinian dialect, which people associated with the Jews, and so called it Hebrew.

And I have no idea of what you mean by saying you think I talk like someone with "a problem with Hebrews". You are talking about a long extinct culture of the old pre-kingdom tribes. Maybe you think you can charge me with antisemitism for defending my faith, which is the belief in the person, Jesus, who is a distinct person, and not just a manifestation of Jehovah or any other entity going by any similar name. Well, you are wrong, and I see your statement as a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with the real issues which are that there is a concerted attack underway to eliminate Christianity, and the first step is to make people comfortable with denying the name of Jesus.

reply to post by jmdewey60


jmdewey, please go do some research on the name Yeshua.

You're the one who keeps using diversionary tactics to claim that Lonewolf is not a Christian (and he's not the only one you do it to). For someone who's always commenting on Lonewolf's comments, why can't you see that he believes in the same Jesus you do. After reading many of your comments over the last year, I'm not sure you have the reading comprehension ability to understand most people's religious comments. You seem to be too quick to call EVERYONE anti-Christian. They can repeat your statements word for word and you would still argue with them about what they believe in and call them anti-Christian. I don't get it.

reply to post by Deetermined
Maybe you have a looser definition of "Christian".
Mine does not include extreme heresies such as modalism.
God, in the orthodox Christian view, does not change forms to appear to be different persons at different times. It sees several distinct person tho are joined in what they term a godhead.
This is in direct opposition to normal current Jewish thinking, so there would be a counter-Christian movement by zealots for the Jewish god, or what they imagine that god to be, to eliminate the religion that espouses that type of thinking referring to a God who they think they have sole ownership to, who will allow certain people who are not Jews to live, if they recognize certain boundaries prescribed to them by the rabbis.