The Prophecy of the Scapegoat

Showme said:
Everyone seems to think they understand Paul, because he meant to be understood by different people in different ways. To a Roman as a Roman, and to a jew as a jew. He was all things to all people. Add 2 Peter 3:16, written by some unknown author, and you have people thinking that if they understand Paul, that they are not untaught and unstable.
Let me presume for a moment that Paul is a problem as you say. Consider all the millions & millions of protestants not just in the USA but now all over the world. My people. If you remove Paul you will continue to have people thinking that they have to be right about every little thing and must all be in agreement at all points. His absence will be like a jagged hole (which will be immediately filled back in by Paul again or someone worse) unless you can address the real problem first, which is humility of speech. It is important and basic Christian training which is currently lacking. In other words, if you feel Paul is corrupt but you respect James, John, 1Peter and the gospels then what is needed is a return to humility. Without that God will be against any remedy and only harm will come of any action. Address that problem and then corruptions can be fixed with God's assistance. Job 22:29 "...There is lifting up and he shall save the humble person." If as men we try and remove Paul by argument and by yanking, then we accomplish nothing. God must be involved and there must be faith. Without humility taught first what you will get is a new division which might not inherit Paul but it will be just as factional and self created, weak and ineffective.
 
So, what's the use for the Christian struggle to convert atheists if their sin of rejection of the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven?
Ben
The root of the struggle is that everyone should seek to participate in the life of the Divine. If you think you have 'the answer', if you abide by the law of 'love thy neighbour', then naturally you'd seek to pass it on ...

God bless,

Thomas
 
Hi all —

Originally Posted by Showme
Everyone seems to think they understand Paul...
And you are no different in that respect?
Yet your understanding differs from theirs?
What does that tell you?

... because he meant to be understood by different people in different ways.
I don't think so at all. I think he meant to be understood by different people in the same way — the Christ risen he preached to the Athenians was the same as he preached to the Jews was the same as he preached to the gentiles...

To a Roman as a Roman, and to a jew as a jew. He was all things to all people...
Again, I think this is a rather superficial reading. He was one thing to all people — and Apostle of Christ — and the message he preached transcends the barriers of nation and state, that's the only basis on which he can make that statement, and the only reason for making it.

and you have people thinking that if they understand Paul, that they are not untaught and unstable.
And yet all the evidence points to the contrary. I think you understanding of Paul is wanting ... there are many, not even Christian, who find in Paul some of the most luminous spiritual writing.

Let me presume for a moment that Paul is a problem as you say...
And let us accept that Paul is a battler. Many people don't like Paul because they don't like the truth being spoken to them without a saccharine coating.

Consider all the millions & millions of protestants not just in the USA but now all over the world. My people. If you remove Paul you will continue to have people thinking that they have to be right about every little thing and must all be in agreement at all points.
Worse than that. Look at Corinth. Here was the church Paul founded, and as soon as he travelled away, they were arguing over who's version of Paul was the better, and the community was in the process of tearing itself apart.

As these were Christians as close to the source as one can get, then Showme's anti-ecclesial arguments really doesn't hold water. The Apostles tried that even before Paul was on the scene, and it didn't work ... a lovely idea, but really? Sadly, no ...

... unless you can address the real problem first, which is humility of speech. It is important and basic Christian training which is currently lacking...
And yet Paul's speeches rank among the exemplars of humility. Corinthians 13 is a classic text, even outside of Christianity.

It's worth reading Christ's discussions with those who challenged Him ... I don't see humility at play too often there, that's for sure. I think Christ made Paul look a lightweight, personally.

In other words, if you feel Paul is corrupt but you respect James, John, 1Peter and the gospels then what is needed is a return to humility.
As the Pauline corpus predates James, John and Peter, it's more like they are a corruption of Paul.

One could suggest that Christ was a quite strident, outspoken voice, and that Paul echoes his Master, but the later scribes toned it down a bit ... :eek:

God bless,

Thomas
 
Let me presume for a moment that Paul is a problem as you say. Consider all the millions & millions of protestants not just in the USA but now all over the world. My people. If you remove Paul you will continue to have people thinking that they have to be right about every little thing and must all be in agreement at all points. His absence will be like a jagged hole (which will be immediately filled back in by Paul again or someone worse) unless you can address the real problem first, which is humility of speech. It is important and basic Christian training which is currently lacking. In other words, if you feel Paul is corrupt but you respect James, John, 1Peter and the gospels then what is needed is a return to humility. Without that God will be against any remedy and only harm will come of any action. Address that problem and then corruptions can be fixed with God's assistance. Job 22:29 "...There is lifting up and he shall save the humble person." If as men we try and remove Paul by argument and by yanking, then we accomplish nothing. God must be involved and there must be faith. Without humility taught first what you will get is a new division which might not inherit Paul but it will be just as factional and self created, weak and ineffective.

There is little agreement within the Protestant church on any points, except maybe a majority agreement on the false doctrines of the Roman church, such as the Athanasian Creed. The mother Roman church was established around 1700 years ago, and now there around 32,000 denominations. Most which believe that Peter and Paul are central pillars of their church. The problem being is that no man is the foundation of the church, and no man should be called teacher or leader (Mt 23:8), for the disciples of Yeshua are all brothers, and there is only one leader.

As for getting rid of Paul, you would be left with the "living word of God". Now which is beter, the duplicity of Paul, a self professed apostle, or the testimony of Yeshua, which Paul's disciples tend to nail to the cross?

As for your testimony, taken from Eliphaz the Temanite, in Job 22:29, which was a misquided affront to Job, I don't get your point. Are you making some kind of hidden false accusation against Showme's responses?

When the angels come in as according to Mt 13:40 to gather up the tares and throw them in the fire, it will not be done with "humility". The tares will simply be pulled and burned. My suggestion would be to not be in close proximity to the tares.
 
Thomas, I'll briefly reply but allow time for Showme. I see what you mean about direct speech, but I see you agree that factionalism should not be rampant. All of this is fairly new thinking to me, but perhaps some things that will help is if protestants reinstate mourning with fasting and begin to observe humility through prayers designed with that in mind. Perhaps this will cast out the demons.

Showme said:
As for your testimony, taken from Eliphaz the Temanite, in Job 22:29, which was a misquided affront to Job, I don't get your point. Are you making some kind of hidden false accusation against Showme's responses?
Sorry. I was trying to find the source of the quote from James 4:6. I felt it would be better to go with his source. Perhaps he was quoting from Psalms.
 
Hi all —


And you are no different in that respect?
Yet your understanding differs from theirs?
What does that tell you?

Showme's reponse in red:

You get me wrong, I take Paul for what he says. He says he is all things to all people. I readily agree with what he says. His message is all things to all people. One can take whatever point of view they choose. The "many" referred to in Mt 7:13, unfortunately choose the point of view which leads to "destruction".

I don't think so at all. I think he meant to be understood by different people in the same way — the Christ risen he preached to the Athenians was the same as he preached to the Jews was the same as he preached to the gentiles...

Well, that might be your point of view, but reality seems to indicate that there are 32,000 denominations, which seems to indicate that your point of view failed.


Again, I think this is a rather superficial reading. He was one thing to all people — and Apostle of Christ — and the message he preached transcends the barriers of nation and state, that's the only basis on which he can make that statement, and the only reason for making it.

Paul's point of view was to set up his own gospel, the gospel of Grace, which is a false gospel, which is based on death and not on life, such as the gospel of Yeshua, which was of the "kingdom of God".


And yet all the evidence points to the contrary. I think you understanding of Paul is wanting ... there are many, not even Christian, who find in Paul some of the most luminous spiritual writing.

If Paul was such a luminous spiritual writer, how is it that the "unlearned" cannot understand his writings per 2 Peter? How come only the "babes" understand Yeshua's writings, and the learned cannot, a fact which appealed to Yeshua, whereas only the "learned" can understand Paul's writings?

And let us accept that Paul is a battler. Many people don't like Paul because they don't like the truth being spoken to them without a saccharine coating.

The "many" love Paul. Hey, all they have to do according to a majority Protestant Pauline view, is to make an altar call, and they are "in". How much more saccharine can one stand?


Worse than that. Look at Corinth. Here was the church Paul founded, and as soon as he travelled away, they were arguing over who's version of Paul was the better, and the community was in the process of tearing itself apart.

Look at the 32,000 denominations, all following Paul, which continue to disintegrate. Your problem being that Paul founded his church, which of course does not heed the message of Yeshua, which according to Yeshua in Mt 7:24-29, means it will be eventually swept away.

As these were Christians as close to the source as one can get, then Showme's anti-ecclesial arguments really doesn't hold water. The Apostles tried that even before Paul was on the scene, and it didn't work ... a lovely idea, but really? Sadly, no ...




And yet Paul's speeches rank among the exemplars of humility. Corinthians 13 is a classic text, even outside of Christianity.

Paul accursed anyone who did not believe what he taught, even any angels God might send. (Gal 1:8) You have a strange sense of humility.

It's worth reading Christ's discussions with those who challenged Him ... I don't see humility at play too often there, that's for sure. I think Christ made Paul look a lightweight, personally.

Paul is full of himself. He is a self professed apostle, and a self professed prophet. And Paul is a lightweight with respect to his message in comparison with Yeshua. Chaff is something that is blown away with the wind. It is the good seed, that remains.


As the Pauline corpus predates James, John and Peter, it's more like they are a corruption of Paul.

So here we have you saying the teachings of James, John and Peter are corrupt. I am sure the Roman church, the basis of your doctrines and canon will be happy to make a note of your support.

One could suggest that Christ was a quite strident, outspoken voice, and that Paul echoes his Master, but the later scribes toned it down a bit ... :eek:

God bless,

Thomas

The difference between Yeshua and Paul is that Yeshua taught the gospel of life, which is the kingdom of God, whereas Paul, taught his own gospel of Grace, the gospel based on death.

Listen, I understand your predicament. You have been deceived by means of the beast with two horns like a lamb, which was prophecized by Yeshua in Revelation 13:14. That is according to prophecy, but it doesn't make your holding on to the two horns like a lamb a correct position.

Hey, I am with Yeshua with what he said in Rev 22:10-11, "let the one who does wrong; still do wrong;...for the time is near..." My point is that the kingdom of God also has to be declared at the same time. It is not like you haven't been given a clear choice to choose between different gospels, but there are those that have not.
 
The difference between Yeshua and Paul is that Yeshua taught the gospel of life, which is the kingdom of God, whereas Paul, taught his own gospel of Grace, the gospel based on death.
Oh dear me no ... how can one be so wrong?

The difference between Paul and the other Gospels (we have nothing from Yeshua other than witness testimony) is that Paul's experience of Christ is that of one "born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul's gospel is one of mystical revelation, and it is he who has given us two primary metaphors of the interior life, that of nuptial union, and the mystical body ...

To read these are 'death' images is to radically miss the meaning of the text.

Listen, I understand your predicament...
As has been noted widely and often, anyone can construe Revelations to mean anything one likes, so your interpretation is just one among a plethora of readings anchored on nothing other than one's own imaginings ...

God bless

Thomas
 
Hi Dream —
... All of this is fairly new thinking to me, but perhaps some things that will help is if protestants reinstate mourning with fasting and begin to observe humility through prayers designed with that in mind. Perhaps this will cast out the demons.
Ah ... humility in that context I can understand. You're not alone in that sentiment, that's for sure. I'd like to see a bit more of it in my own tradition ...

God bless

Thomas
 
Oh dear me no ... how can one be so wrong?

The difference between Paul and the other Gospels (we have nothing from Yeshua other than witness testimony) is that Paul's experience of Christ is that of one "born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul's gospel is one of mystical revelation, and it is he who has given us two primary metaphors of the interior life, that of nuptial union, and the mystical body ...

Showme reponse in red:
Such double speak. I think you and Paul are indeed brothers. As for your 1 Cor 15:8-9, if Paul is "not fit to be called an apostle", why does he continue to maintain he is an apostle? As for his "mystical revelation of nuptial union" it appears Paul is so over the top that you are using made up descriptives. And there is no "mystical body". You have the "true" church which is the physical body of Yeshua, made up of children of God, lead by the Spirit. This is no mystical body, and the "true" church is independent of Paul.

As far as witnessed testimony, that is the one thing that Yeshua said can be used to determine a matter. (Mt 18:16 & Dt 19:15)

As for Paul being "untimely born", that is per his own witness which Yeshua decries as a lie. (John 4:31) "If I alone bear wintess of Myself, my testimony is not true". Mt 18:16," A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Paul's "untimely born" is a matter which can not be established by the rules set by Law and the prophets, and seconded by Yeshua. No one saw Paul's supposed "untimely born" but Paul himself.

To read these are 'death' images is to radically miss the meaning of the text.

The gospel of the cross is a gospel of death. The gospel of the Kingdom of God, is the rebirth into life. Yeshua never preached the gospel of the cross. That belongs to the disciples of Paul. Yeshua's gospel was the kingdom of God, something one must seek.


As has been noted widely and often, anyone can construe Revelations to mean anything one likes, so your interpretation is just one among a plethora of readings anchored on nothing other than one's own imaginings ...

God bless

Thomas

Feel free to tell what Revelation 13 and 17 actual relate to, especially since 6/8 of Revelation 17 is past tense. (Rev 17:10) Keep in mind your interpretation should parallel Daniel and fit into history.
 
It's not the testimony of Yeshua though, is it? It's the testimony of John.

God bless,

Thomas

It all depends on which quote you are relating too. Mostly I try to quote the testimony of Yeshua, witnessed by John, and if not in a hurry, will sometimes, but rarely add a second source. This is what Yeshua testified to as being how any matter is to be established (Mt 18:16 & Dt 19:15) Not by taking the testimony of Paul and his disciples. Paul never heard Yeshua speak, except by his own singular testimony, which cannot withstand Yeshua's requirement of acceptable testimony.
 
Matthew 18 contains a terrific example of putting up with differences, beginning by saying "Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In it Jesus talks about what to do when someone is offending you, and it contains precious 18:19, if two or more agree on something they may pray in Jesus name. That is, you don't have to agree on everything. And why do you suppose two or three are mentioned? Its because that is the number of witnesses required for a conviction, not an entire city: When someone wrongs someone else and both are in Jesus it doesn't mean you should cut them off from every living christian, nor can you cut them off, nor is it appropriate to bring their personal business before the entire congregation or paste it all over the internet. This follows from the concept of mercy, from the concept of the cities of refuge, from several Bible stories in which people judged too swiftly and severely, and if draws from multiple parts of the Bible. The idea is you shouldn't cut people off unless you personally feel it is necessary, and don't exclude people over misunderstandings or disagreements.
 
Matthew 18 contains a terrific example of putting up with differences, beginning by saying "Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In it Jesus talks about what to do when someone is offending you, and it contains precious 18:19, if two or more agree on something they may pray in Jesus name. That is, you don't have to agree on everything. And why do you suppose two or three are mentioned? Its because that is the number of witnesses required for a conviction, not an entire city: When someone wrongs someone else and both are in Jesus it doesn't mean you should cut them off from every living christian, nor can you cut them off, nor is it appropriate to bring their personal business before the entire congregation or paste it all over the internet. This follows from the concept of mercy, from the concept of the cities of refuge, from several Bible stories in which people judged too swiftly and severely, and if draws from multiple parts of the Bible. The idea is you shouldn't cut people off unless you personally feel it is necessary, and don't exclude people over misunderstandings or disagreements.

To bypass your obfuscation of the standard Yeshua set for establishing a matter, which is based on the "living Word of God", Dt 19:15, which the unknown author of Hebrews thought he could do away with, I will use John 8:17, which states, "that the testimony of two men is true". The use in Mt 18:16 is in the same vein, but you seem commited to propogating some mythical construct, based on a particular example of the use of two witnesses. John 8:17 is a second example, different from the that of Mt 18:16. All judgements and establishments of any matter needs at least two witnesses. This is the minimum standard which was is in the Law and the prophets and emphasized by Yeshua. And unlike 2 Corinthians 13:1-2, whereas Paul thinks that if he repeats himself twice, that that is sufficient to meet the standard, Yeshua is referring to Dt 19:15, whereas the witnesses have to be reliable first hand witnesses. Yeshua emphasized a standard to establish any matter (Dt 19:15), and yet it is not used. You can follow unknown authors, and self professed apostles all day long, but it will not change the Law and the prophets, nor the testimony of Yeshua, which in itself has to be established by the use of two reliable first hand witnesses. Your unknown authors and self proclaimed apostles, like the one trying to influence the church of Ephesus (Rev 2:2), will be as chaff in the wind.

For informational purposes, Mt 18:16 isn't about being humble or having someone offend you, it is about turning "your brother" from sin, and using two people instead of one to do it. The first part of Mt 18 is about what happens to those who cause the children of God to stumble. Such as inserting stumbling blocks between God and his children. An example would be having someone insert themselves between God and his children, such as a priest, bishop, self professed apostle, Vicar of Christ, or a simple Rabbi. All these are used in the propogation of the doctrines of men, and are direct opposition to what Yeshua said in Mt 23:8 and John 14:26.
 
Feel free to tell what Revelation 13 and 17 actual relate to ...
OK.

Ch 13: Of the beast with seven heads and of a second beast.
This beast signifies the enemy of the people of God, to the end of the world. Of the seven heads, five were fallen: Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Persia and Greece (as a monarchy). The sixth was Rome and the seventh is to come, the Age of the Antichrist.

The second beast signifies two counter-traditional tendencies, pseudo-religiosity and pseudo-spirituality "and he spoke as a dragon" (v12) signifies, in Hermeticism and many symbol-systems, the blood (although I'd have to check that in this instance). Phrases such as 'he caused ... them ... to adore the first beast" (13); "And he did great signs" (14), "And he seduced them" (15) speaks of deception.

Chapter 17: "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth"
As in mythopoeic texts, 'Babylon' becomes the symbol, the 'mother signifying the archetype of a tendency that will repeat itself down through time.

+++

By its very nature, the 'image template' can be applied in any number of permutations. As I didn't enjoy school, I can work the imagery to fit the school I went to, as I was in a cult for many years, the 'second beast' fits that to a tee.

That's the point. That's the author's intention. What he's pointing to is the metaphysical principle of the counter- and contra-traditional tendency. Empires will come and go, cultures will come and go, but history repeats itself ...

God bless,

Thomas
 
It all depends on which quote you are relating too.
Yes it does, doesn't it?

But then again, picking and choosing your quotes is not really an option, or rather, its an option you can exercise which distorts the whole image. In fact its the notion behind the term 'heresy', which comes from the Greek meaning 'to choose' and implies one takes one element of the text and amplifies it out of all proportion and all context.

And in a very real sense, it's idolatry.

I don't see your problem with Paul, when Paul and Revelations agree so fundamentally. Both speak in terms of nuptial union, between Christ and His Church, between the soul and God?

I think you're getting too carried away with imagining meanings of the imagery.

Mostly I try to quote the testimony of Yeshua, witnessed by John...
But it's the testimony of John, recalling ... the entire New Testament is the testimony of the witnesses of Christ, it is not Christ's self-testimony, for many, many reasons, least of all the question "Who do you say that I am?" which He poses often.

This is what Yeshua testified to as being how any matter is to be established (Mt 18:16 & Dt 19:15)
Yes, and yet you choose to ignore it. Matthew says "And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Yet you refuse to hear the testimony of those who were close to Christ — are you saying Paul is lying when he claims that Jesus spoke to him?

You have chosen what you want to hear, and you will hear no other, and insist that everyone is marching out of step, except you ... I think the words of Scripture, on the lips of Christ, condemns thee.

Not by taking the testimony of Paul and his disciples. Paul never heard Yeshua speak...
Yes he did, or are you saying Scripture is wrong, and Paul is lying?

... except by his own singular testimony, which cannot withstand Yeshua's requirement of acceptable testimony.
Then, by the same rule, neither can the Book of the Apocalypse, which is a singular testimony, claiming to be the words of Christ.

You can't have it both ways ...

God bless

Thomas
 
Showme said:
For informational purposes, Mt 18:16 isn't about being humble or having someone offend you, it is about turning "your brother" from sin, and using two people instead of one to do it.
This has given me a lot to think about, but it appeals to my dark side. I like that fact that it requires no humility on my part and I don't have to wait for God to do anything. I can rapidly take problem people through steps 1 through 3 and they're out of my hair until they are ready to step back into the light. Now that I think about it I've seen this method used successfully to keep divorced people and other morally divergent types out of the congregation of the faithful. Keep the sinners away from our children. Great idea! Another benefit is that this point of view allows me to make a clean break with the congregation. If I want 'out' it provides a way for me to get away and have no one chasing after me or bothering me with phone calls or calling cards. Its as easy as one two three. If I don't like my family, I can get kicked out of the church and I'm free of them for good or until I feel like repenting.
 
Ch 13: Of the beast with seven heads and of a second beast.
This beast signifies the enemy of the people of God, to the end of the world. Of the seven heads, five were fallen: Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Persia and Greece (as a monarchy). The sixth was Rome and the seventh is to come, the Age of the Antichrist.

Showme response in red:
To be true, your interpretation of Revelation must be in line with that of Daniel 2 & 7, and in line with each other. Your interpretation does not match that given in Daniel, nor does it fit Revelation. You also did not explain the 8th head. Who was the beast that was, is not, and himself an eighth, and is one of the seven?

The dreams of Nebuchadnezzar involved a statue and "four great beast", which symbolized what will take place in the "latter days" (Dan 2:28). The head of gold of Dan 2:38, and the first beast of Dan 7, was not Egypt, but as explained in Daniel 2:38, was Nebuchadnezzar himself, representing the Babylonian empire. The breast of silver, the Persian empire, was represented by a beast like a bear, with three ribs in its' mouth, which would be Croesus of Lydia, Nabodidus of Babylon, and Tomyrius of Scythian, who were consumed by Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire. The thighs of bronze, represents the Macedonian empire, and was also represented by a leopard with four wings, and four heads, which would represent the military phalanx by which Alexander defeated his enemies, plus his 4 leading generals, who inherited his kingdom. The legs of iron, being the Roman Empire, and the feet of iron and clay, being the final representation, a combination which included the Roman empire.

Daniel 2:38 clearly gives the head of gold as representing Nebuchadnezzar, which is a parallel parable to that of Revelation 17, but which breaks the Roman legs of iron and a mix of clay into the last 4 of the 7 heads. Number 4 being Pompey who conquered Jerusalem, number 5 being Julius Caesar who "had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed." (Rev 13:3), and who will return as the 8th beast, number 6 being Augustus Caesar, the healed Caesar who was to destroy the temple as Vespasian the emperor, and his son Titus, doing the actual destruction. The 7th head, being "the other has not yet comes" (Rev 17:10), is of course Constantine, who was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive the world, of whom you gave the position as the anti-Christ, which is somewhat descriptive, if not entirely correct, although Constantine took the title of Pontifex Maximus, and “divi filius (son of God). Julius Caesar was the original emperor given the title “divi filius”, and his mythical heritage made him a son of god, being related to Venus, and Apollo. You seem to have forgotten about the eighth head.

The second beast signifies two counter-traditional tendencies, pseudo-religiosity and pseudo-spirituality "and he spoke as a dragon" (v12) signifies, in Hermeticism and many symbol-systems, the blood (although I'd have to check that in this instance). Phrases such as 'he caused ... them ... to adore the first beast" (13); "And he did great signs" (14), "And he seduced them" (15) speaks of deception.

The dragon is defined in Revelation 20:2 as the “Devil and Satan”. In this instance, it would be represented by Apollo, who was also the son of god, and it was at Apollo’s grotto, that Constantine had his vision, and it was Apollo who was the authority behind the beast. His image can be found in the forum of Constantine, and in the basement of the Vatican. But the image that Constantine saw at the Grotto of Apollo, the cross, can be found in most churches. Alexander visited Apollo’s Oracle at Delphi, and Caesar visited the Grotto of Apollo at Gaul, before crossing the Rubicon. And of course, Paul and Mohammed also saw an angel of light.

Chapter 17: "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth"
As in mythopoeic texts, 'Babylon' becomes the symbol, the 'mother signifying the archetype of a tendency that will repeat itself down through time.

Actually Babylon was the mystery religion which sat upon the beast, in the sense that she manipulated the power of the kings she sat upon. The Roman church is just one of the daughters of that mystery religion. She is described as wearing fine linen, adorned with scarlet and gold, and precious stones. This would fit the description of the dress of the pope and his cardinals, the leaders of one of the daughters of Babylon. She is in her death throes as we speak, but she still persists. (Rev 17:16)

+++

By its very nature, the 'image template' can be applied in any number of permutations. As I didn't enjoy school, I can work the imagery to fit the school I went to, as I was in a cult for many years, the 'second beast' fits that to a tee.

That's the point. That's the author's intention. What he's pointing to is the metaphysical principle of the counter- and contra-traditional tendency. Empires will come and go, cultures will come and go, but history repeats itself ...

God bless,

Thomas

The author’s intent is stated in Revelation 1:1,” The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bond-servant, the things which must shortly take place;..” The imagery used may be different, but the events described are all the same. Any interpretation must fit all the different imageries given.
 
This has given me a lot to think about, but it appeals to my dark side. I like that fact that it requires no humility on my part and I don't have to wait for God to do anything. I can rapidly take problem people through steps 1 through 3 and they're out of my hair until they are ready to step back into the light. Now that I think about it I've seen this method used successfully to keep divorced people and other morally divergent types out of the congregation of the faithful. Keep the sinners away from our children. Great idea! Another benefit is that this point of view allows me to make a clean break with the congregation. If I want 'out' it provides a way for me to get away and have no one chasing after me or bothering me with phone calls or calling cards. Its as easy as one two three. If I don't like my family, I can get kicked out of the church and I'm free of them for good or until I feel like repenting.

Your position is based on the assumption that you are of the family of God, whereas there are probably close to 32,000 different denominations, which many might considered you as being a member of the family of the deceived, and that you will "perish everlastingly". Athanasian Creed Or then again, the "many" may perceive you as being of the family of God, and that would be reason for concern as well. (Mt 7:13)
 
Yes it does, doesn't it?
But then again, picking and choosing your quotes is not really an option, or rather, its an option you can exercise which distorts the whole image. In fact its the notion behind the term 'heresy', which comes from the Greek meaning 'to choose' and implies one takes one element of the text and amplifies it out of all proportion and all context.

And in a very real sense, it's idolatry.

Showme response in red:
To choose a canon established by an entity which has been proven to be a tree with bad fruit, would seem to be a wide path to destruction (Mt 7:13) And calling the words of a self professed apostle and his associates on such authority, the words of God, would be giving your “picking and choosing” to a supporter of the killer of saints.

I don't see your problem with Paul, when Paul and Revelations agree so fundamentally. Both speak in terms of nuptial union, between Christ and His Church, between the soul and God?

There are many churches, but basically there are only two, the church of God, and the church of the devil. One does the will of God, which is expressed in the Law and the prophets, as well as the testimony of Yeshua. The other tries to make “obsolete” the Law and the prophets (Hebrews 8:13), and to nail the testimony of Yeshua on a cross.

I think you're getting too carried away with imagining meanings of the imagery.

Most of Yeshua’s testimony was in parables. This was so the wise in their own eyes would not discern, and to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9,”keep on listening but do not perceive”. The message is for only those with ears to hear. The source of understanding is the “Helper” per John 14:26.


But it's the testimony of John, recalling ... the entire New Testament is the testimony of the witnesses of Christ, it is not Christ's self-testimony, for many, many reasons, least of all the question "Who do you say that I am?" which He poses often.

To establish which testimony is true, you need at least two first person witnesses of that testimony. According to Yeshua, Paul’s testimony would be considered a “lie”. (John 5:31) Paul was only a firsthand witness to only his own delusions. There are standards which must be met, and another standard is voiced in Is 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”


Yes, and yet you choose to ignore it. Matthew says "And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Yet you refuse to hear the testimony of those who were close to Christ — are you saying Paul is lying when he claims that Jesus spoke to him?

It makes little difference, there was only one witness. According to Yeshua, you cannot confirm the matter. According to Yeshua in John 5:31, Paul is a liar.

You have chosen what you want to hear, and you will hear no other, and insist that everyone is marching out of step, except you ... I think the words of Scripture, on the lips of Christ, condemns thee.

According to Yeshua, it is best to be out of step with the “many” (Mt 7:13)

Yes he did, or are you saying Scripture is wrong, and Paul is lying?

I will point out that the “many” condemned Yeshua, but he was not concerned, and neither am I. As for whether Paul is lying, it makes no difference. Was Mohammed lying? Did he see an angel of light? Did Constantine see an angel of light? Who cares, Paul said himself that the devil comes as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14) Your church is built on the self testimony of Paul. Good luck with that.


Then, by the same rule, neither can the Book of the Apocalypse, which is a singular testimony, claiming to be the words of Christ.

You can't have it both ways ...

God bless

Thomas

The book of Revelation is paralleled by the Law and the prophets. Everything is in line with the Law and the prophets. It simply sheds light on to what the prophets were talking about. Paul on the other hand, undermines the Law and the prophets, and calls even the angels accursed if they should deem to refute him. (Gal 1:8)
 
Let us not forget, there is a long tradition of Revelation being really the story of the Early Church in Asia wrapped in symbology. This is quite literally how the Armenian, Oriental and Eastern Churches view it. Not prophecy, but history.
 
Back
Top