There are no bad Christians. You have a choice to either be a good Christian or a good Satanist, but you don't get to choose to be a bad Christian.
In the other sense though, most of you Christians are nothing but bad. Bad morals, bad attitudes and liars. But in another sense, I would just as soon say none of that sort are Christians at all. They're living according to the rules of the devil better than they are the rules of God.
Let's talk about pork and your "apostle" Paul. Many of you continue to eat pork to spite God because of your hatred of His law. And then you uphold Paul as a great oracle of knowledge. Paul said it himself, that you can't partake of God's table and the table of demons. You have to choice which one you serve. I've got news for you "Christians": There ain't no pork being served at God's table. If the devil offered many of you a ham sandwich you would sell your soul for it. You go on doing all sorts of evil, lies, slanders. You have such a deficit of morality and you choose to identify by the name Christian when that is not what you are. You are Satanists as a matter of fact. And many of you are so irreparably stupid I think God will finally have mercy on you because of your outrageous ignorance. But if you knowingly go around cursing His children, including His prophets, and continue preaching Hell then perhaps He will remove His mercy. You cannot be merciless and preach damnation against all but then expect mercy, especially when you have no special merit over anyone else. In fact, you're morally more decrepit than most of those you pass judgment on. And don't tell me I have accused anyone. I just called it for what it is.
Either you obey the law or you do not. That means you are either law-abiding or you are a criminal, a law-breaker. No Epistle can reverse that fact. If you choose to break the Law, then you are practicing Satanism. You are either a good Christian or a good Satanist, but you cannot be a bad Christian.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
That Common Hell Question
As I have written here, my belief is that the damned will go into the ground and they are gone. I don't accept an eternal Hell and I might be open to some sort of amnesty policy whereby at least some of the unbelievers might receive salvation, some sort of apokatastasis. Then Christians ask me this question: If unbelievers can make it to Heaven without accepting Christ? Which I accept as a legitimate question. But I ask that you respect that I get to ask legitimate questions too. My question for you is this: If there is no Law, then why do unbelievers need Christ? You who argue that Paul has instituted liberty and grace and that we're free to eat bacon and ham sandwiches, you who say there is no Law, then good for you because now you have made Christ to be useless at best. There is no Law so there is no need for Christ so that we may receive forgiveness and salvation anymore.
(EDIT: Several weeks after writing because some of you are dense: If Christ died because many of you are rebels who eat ham sandwiches and sausage on a stick, but you say that it's perfectly okay to eat sausage on a stick and ham sandwiches, then you're saying Christ died for nothing at all. 'He meant well but he was deluded' in other words. Or some of you will try to be tricky and say He died just so we could eat as many ham sandwiches as we want. Hey that's a good idea, I guess we can all go around stealing from people and killing anyone we dislike too can't we, I mean since Christ already died for everything anyway, right?)
But you want your cake and to eat it too. (That's such a stupid cliche. If it's my cake, then why don't I get to eat it?) Your point is that there is a Law that judges people who reject Christ but then once you get saved the Law flies out the window and you don't have to respect any of it? Wait, I just remembered something. The (false) Apostle Paul said that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law. The Law is no curse, that is a flat out lie. Eating balogna intentionally in defiance of God's Law brings a curse. The German language is cursed too because of cologne, balogna, and colonel, they make no sense whatsoever, learn to spell. Either that, or Americans don't know how to read and we're cursed (I would say in fact this nation is already cursed).
But to get back to the point, why do you say that you sit in special category and don't have to obey the commandments but if an unbeliever does he reserves a front row seat in Hell? So your question is faulty because it uses an inconsistent rule.
(EDIT: Several weeks after writing because some of you are dense: If Christ died because many of you are rebels who eat ham sandwiches and sausage on a stick, but you say that it's perfectly okay to eat sausage on a stick and ham sandwiches, then you're saying Christ died for nothing at all. 'He meant well but he was deluded' in other words. Or some of you will try to be tricky and say He died just so we could eat as many ham sandwiches as we want. Hey that's a good idea, I guess we can all go around stealing from people and killing anyone we dislike too can't we, I mean since Christ already died for everything anyway, right?)
But you want your cake and to eat it too. (That's such a stupid cliche. If it's my cake, then why don't I get to eat it?) Your point is that there is a Law that judges people who reject Christ but then once you get saved the Law flies out the window and you don't have to respect any of it? Wait, I just remembered something. The (false) Apostle Paul said that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law. The Law is no curse, that is a flat out lie. Eating balogna intentionally in defiance of God's Law brings a curse. The German language is cursed too because of cologne, balogna, and colonel, they make no sense whatsoever, learn to spell. Either that, or Americans don't know how to read and we're cursed (I would say in fact this nation is already cursed).
But to get back to the point, why do you say that you sit in special category and don't have to obey the commandments but if an unbeliever does he reserves a front row seat in Hell? So your question is faulty because it uses an inconsistent rule.
Social Issues I: Beyonce and Justice
Justice and Beyonce
Beyonce recently made the point in an interview that there was no justice in the world. That's odd coming from her. Her and her husband, who have made absolutely no contribution whatsoever to humanity except making pathetic and annoying music are worth, it's estimated, about $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars). What kind of justice is that? You aren't spending much of that money feeding your people in Africa, you're not building houses for Habitat for Humanity that crack dealers can be awarded so they have a safe place to sell drugs from, you're not promoting vaccination in Africa like Bill Gates does that has side effects of causing sterility so that the unchecked reproduction there can be diminished (that's what it's for, check the facts). Or even better than eugenics: a billion dollars could build thousands of schools, supply running water to potentially hundreds of thousands of Africans, and still have money left to build universities and start endowments so that the best and brightest children could see their entire schooling paid for, through medical schol even.
What does she propose to do for us as a society? She takes an interview and sets time aside from her day to lecture us on "justice".
Where's the justice when since the days of Destiny's Child, you've promoted sex sex sex, and nothing but sex, dressing in sexually provocative get-ups, practically expose you ass at the Super Bowl, there's nothing even leftto the imagination, we practically have seen you completely naked, and so a guy at your concert a few weeks ago slaps you on the ass and so you have the guy removed. Wait a minute, you made the business decision to sell yourself off as a sex item, but then someone going the next logical step and slapping you on the ass is the problem?
That is not justice! That is an injustice!
Another reason it's an injustice, not only because you are a hypocrite, but because that concert probably cost nearly $100 just for general admission. The guy to be that close to the stage likely paid more than that. You made how many tens or hundreds of thousands but this guy has committed a capital offense to slap you on the butt?
Or how's this for justice, since you lecture us on justice.
You lip-sync at the Inauguration.
You lip-sync at the Super Bowl.
Then you probably (I don't know and don't really care) go to this concert, make hundreds of thousands that night by charging probably $100 a ticket, you lip sync, and then a guy slaps you on the ass and he's thrown out.
You don't sing. You throw your body out like you are some sort of ideal woman (you're kind of disgusting actually) but then if someone gets a little to close they're thrown out, despite having paid the hundreds of dollars so that you can go home that much closer to making another million for simply prancing around on a stage and moving your lips like you were actually singing.
You lecture us on justice. Go help your people. You saw a black man in office. Now go see blacks in Africa have clean water that isn't contaminated by worms and parasites, living in mud huts and taking baths under urinating cattle. Go fix that and we'll talk about justice. You and your husband may be the richest people on earth who have created actually nothing and offer nothing to society whatsoever. That you lecture anyone on justice is what makes you a terrible person.
EDIT: 4:55 AM, I have the NBC morning news on. Right as I was getting ready to post this they did a story about how in photos for some magazine I guess they photoshopped her body to make her look thinner. What a fake faker... She can't sing, she sells sex, even her photos are faked and she lectures us. And her name is spelled be-yontz. There is no acute accent on the E. Look, you don't get to override rules of language just because your sort doesn't generally agree there are any rules. Ebonics, Tomekas, and I can verify one Squirtisha, it doesn't matter. But it does. If it were pronounced correctly, it would be b-yontz.
Beyonce recently made the point in an interview that there was no justice in the world. That's odd coming from her. Her and her husband, who have made absolutely no contribution whatsoever to humanity except making pathetic and annoying music are worth, it's estimated, about $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars). What kind of justice is that? You aren't spending much of that money feeding your people in Africa, you're not building houses for Habitat for Humanity that crack dealers can be awarded so they have a safe place to sell drugs from, you're not promoting vaccination in Africa like Bill Gates does that has side effects of causing sterility so that the unchecked reproduction there can be diminished (that's what it's for, check the facts). Or even better than eugenics: a billion dollars could build thousands of schools, supply running water to potentially hundreds of thousands of Africans, and still have money left to build universities and start endowments so that the best and brightest children could see their entire schooling paid for, through medical schol even.
What does she propose to do for us as a society? She takes an interview and sets time aside from her day to lecture us on "justice".
Where's the justice when since the days of Destiny's Child, you've promoted sex sex sex, and nothing but sex, dressing in sexually provocative get-ups, practically expose you ass at the Super Bowl, there's nothing even leftto the imagination, we practically have seen you completely naked, and so a guy at your concert a few weeks ago slaps you on the ass and so you have the guy removed. Wait a minute, you made the business decision to sell yourself off as a sex item, but then someone going the next logical step and slapping you on the ass is the problem?
That is not justice! That is an injustice!
Another reason it's an injustice, not only because you are a hypocrite, but because that concert probably cost nearly $100 just for general admission. The guy to be that close to the stage likely paid more than that. You made how many tens or hundreds of thousands but this guy has committed a capital offense to slap you on the butt?
Or how's this for justice, since you lecture us on justice.
You lip-sync at the Inauguration.
You lip-sync at the Super Bowl.
Then you probably (I don't know and don't really care) go to this concert, make hundreds of thousands that night by charging probably $100 a ticket, you lip sync, and then a guy slaps you on the ass and he's thrown out.
You don't sing. You throw your body out like you are some sort of ideal woman (you're kind of disgusting actually) but then if someone gets a little to close they're thrown out, despite having paid the hundreds of dollars so that you can go home that much closer to making another million for simply prancing around on a stage and moving your lips like you were actually singing.
You lecture us on justice. Go help your people. You saw a black man in office. Now go see blacks in Africa have clean water that isn't contaminated by worms and parasites, living in mud huts and taking baths under urinating cattle. Go fix that and we'll talk about justice. You and your husband may be the richest people on earth who have created actually nothing and offer nothing to society whatsoever. That you lecture anyone on justice is what makes you a terrible person.
EDIT: 4:55 AM, I have the NBC morning news on. Right as I was getting ready to post this they did a story about how in photos for some magazine I guess they photoshopped her body to make her look thinner. What a fake faker... She can't sing, she sells sex, even her photos are faked and she lectures us. And her name is spelled be-yontz. There is no acute accent on the E. Look, you don't get to override rules of language just because your sort doesn't generally agree there are any rules. Ebonics, Tomekas, and I can verify one Squirtisha, it doesn't matter. But it does. If it were pronounced correctly, it would be b-yontz.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Did Paul Really Worship Zeus?
What did Paul really believe?
I would suggest to you that there is some mystery left in that question. Despite all the writings he bestowed upon the ages there were certain of his quotes like, "To the Jews I became like a Jew" and "To those under the law I became like one under the law," (I Corinthians 9:19-23) and so it could be left to be concluded by a reasonable person that he was not completely forthcoming with that information that would affect his method of attempting to please all men at all times ( I Corinthians 10:33). Surely trying to make everyone happy would lead to compromise. He very nearly claims he understood all mysteries (I Corinthians 13:2) which leads logical readers to ask did he explain all of them or did he leave some of them out. Elsewhere he completely lies (Romans 3:7 where he nearly admits it, elsewhere such as before Festus, he clearly fabricates), he takes an apparition's words to him as making him an apostle where the apparition never makes such a claim (did the ghost have such power?) and yet no one, Peter, Christ, or Luke ever identify him as being an apostle.
Here, I offer to you a presentation, an organic argument that should help to dissect what Paul kept to himself, those mysteries that he set himself as being the only one to receive the answers on.
And on that note, I make no pretense that I'm here to keep from offending anyone like the fraudulent Paul did. You can be offended as much as you like but I'm not going to alter a word of mine unless it is shown to be false, and that you will not accomplish either.
____________________________
Paul's Jesus, YHWH's Yahshua
When was the name of "Jesus" adopted? Greco-Roman hegemony assured this name was used over Yahshua. This treatise will offer an explanation coinciding with historical events, a unifying theory, starting with Saul's conversion.
_____
(Saul struck with blinding light) at Acts 9...
v
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
from Acts 9,26
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick gainst the pricks."
^
Now this is an expression that some may have trouble understanding. It was something I needed explained and I'm sure it would be a help to offer that here. This statement is a reference to goading an animal, pricking them, with a spur such as that on a boot, telling them to go on.
Euripides' Bacchae
The king of Thebes was against the revelries and orgies held in honor of Dinonysus, "divine son of Zeus," god of wine and grapes. That is, the king was actively trying to stop these processions from taking place. Dionysus, enraged, comes to earth in human form, appears to the king while concealing his identity saying that the king should not fight against Dionysus, "a mere mortal against a god". "For it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," comparing the king to an animal fighting against the pricks. Now, Paul is an educated Roman citizen. When the spirit identifies itself as "Jesus", that is "Hail Zeus" and borrows a quip from Dionysus, he very literally takes this as saying that the Christ is in fact Dionysus, god of wines.
He may be encountered with a series of progressive thoughts recalling...
Yeshua came first changing water to wine at Cana (John 4), He came "eating and drinking" (Matthew 11), He asked us to drink wine (For this is my blood). When Paul starts addressing these similarities as an educated Roman, he could likely come to the conclusion that the Messiah was Dionysus.
Dionysus comes from on high, emptying himself of god-ness and taking on the form of a man (in the Bacchae). Philippians 2:6,7 "Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness". Paul's Iesous is not the Yahsua revealed to us.
Paul integrates a pagan "trinity" concept, referring to a godhead (cf. Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:9). The spirit which ordained Paul ordained this gospel. If the doctrine opposes Christ, the spirit was not Yahshua. Paul, with the spurring or goad of Dionysus continues his paganizing of the Christian faith.
Festus says to Paul "You are out of your mind Paul. Your great learning is driving you mad."
Festus is pointing out that the Hebrew Messiah identifying Himself as the son of Zeus is an absurdity. He was right. However, Festus adds, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Clearly if he could keep to his Roman pantheon of gods then he would accept the Messiah, since the Messiah was nothing more than another being in the pantheon.
Paul to the Greeks continues along with this thinking. Saying, "For we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28), adopted from Aratus, speaking of Zeus. Paul is implicit, the god of your Aratus is my god, and the Hail Zeus is his son.
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28). Epimenides, speaking of Zeus says, "For in thee we live and move and have our being." Epimenides says, "The Cretians, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies," Paul adopts this at Titus 1:12.
This was adapted from Epimenides' Cretica. It was a poem criticizing the Cretians for building a tomb for Zeus, Epimenides believing Zeus to be eternal. So what Paul is actually doing here is cursing the Cretians because in fact his god is in fact Zeus.
I Corinthians 15:33 "...evil communications corrupt good manners." Menander of Athens "Bad company corrupts good character."
Buddha "Work out your own salvation." Paul at Philemon 2:12 "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
He also adapts a quote from Publius Terentius Afer at I Timothy 5:4.
The Hail Zeus was preached to the Greeks, the followers of Zeus. The Messiah came as "Hail Zeus", son of Zeus, and any Greek or Roman could accept that. Some used the word "poetry" saying Paul quotes "pagan poetry". It is really pagan theology or pagan scriptures he quotes. By quoting it and pasing it off as from God he is validating it. His use of "godhead" is another throwback to pagan theology.
Constantine
This doctrine of appeasement we see in the conversion of the Roman empire. The Christo-philosophy didn't jeopardize or supplant Roman paganism at all but was only a supplement. The Catholic church today is evidence with its vestments, relics, Mariolatry, Eucharist, and images. The Saturnalia was continued and carries on today as Christmas. The Sunday of Christ's resurrection came to coincide with the feast the fertility goddess Ishtar becoming Easter, another pagan revelry. The Christianity we had passed onto us today represents less the faith of the apostles than it does the Roman paganism. Today we pray to Paul's Hail Zeus rather than YHWH's Yahshua. Paul told Gentiles of the permissibility of meats sacrificed to idols, while Christ refutes this at Revelation 2:14.
______
Clearly, Paul's theology is formed around the belief that the Messiah is the divine son of Zeus and that he exists in some sort of godhead relationship with his father and mother. Paul never came to confirm this was his view but he does all but confirm it in his letters to the Gentiles. In conclusion, whoever it was that spoke to Paul on the Damascus road was using a cover identity of Dionysus and brought Paul to, instead of preaching Christ, to preach Zeusian religion to pagans.
I would suggest to you that there is some mystery left in that question. Despite all the writings he bestowed upon the ages there were certain of his quotes like, "To the Jews I became like a Jew" and "To those under the law I became like one under the law," (I Corinthians 9:19-23) and so it could be left to be concluded by a reasonable person that he was not completely forthcoming with that information that would affect his method of attempting to please all men at all times ( I Corinthians 10:33). Surely trying to make everyone happy would lead to compromise. He very nearly claims he understood all mysteries (I Corinthians 13:2) which leads logical readers to ask did he explain all of them or did he leave some of them out. Elsewhere he completely lies (Romans 3:7 where he nearly admits it, elsewhere such as before Festus, he clearly fabricates), he takes an apparition's words to him as making him an apostle where the apparition never makes such a claim (did the ghost have such power?) and yet no one, Peter, Christ, or Luke ever identify him as being an apostle.
Here, I offer to you a presentation, an organic argument that should help to dissect what Paul kept to himself, those mysteries that he set himself as being the only one to receive the answers on.
And on that note, I make no pretense that I'm here to keep from offending anyone like the fraudulent Paul did. You can be offended as much as you like but I'm not going to alter a word of mine unless it is shown to be false, and that you will not accomplish either.
____________________________
Paul's Jesus, YHWH's Yahshua
When was the name of "Jesus" adopted? Greco-Roman hegemony assured this name was used over Yahshua. This treatise will offer an explanation coinciding with historical events, a unifying theory, starting with Saul's conversion.
_____
(Saul struck with blinding light) at Acts 9...
v
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
from Acts 9,26
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick gainst the pricks."
^
Now this is an expression that some may have trouble understanding. It was something I needed explained and I'm sure it would be a help to offer that here. This statement is a reference to goading an animal, pricking them, with a spur such as that on a boot, telling them to go on.
Euripides' Bacchae
The king of Thebes was against the revelries and orgies held in honor of Dinonysus, "divine son of Zeus," god of wine and grapes. That is, the king was actively trying to stop these processions from taking place. Dionysus, enraged, comes to earth in human form, appears to the king while concealing his identity saying that the king should not fight against Dionysus, "a mere mortal against a god". "For it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," comparing the king to an animal fighting against the pricks. Now, Paul is an educated Roman citizen. When the spirit identifies itself as "Jesus", that is "Hail Zeus" and borrows a quip from Dionysus, he very literally takes this as saying that the Christ is in fact Dionysus, god of wines.
He may be encountered with a series of progressive thoughts recalling...
Yeshua came first changing water to wine at Cana (John 4), He came "eating and drinking" (Matthew 11), He asked us to drink wine (For this is my blood). When Paul starts addressing these similarities as an educated Roman, he could likely come to the conclusion that the Messiah was Dionysus.
Dionysus comes from on high, emptying himself of god-ness and taking on the form of a man (in the Bacchae). Philippians 2:6,7 "Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness". Paul's Iesous is not the Yahsua revealed to us.
Paul integrates a pagan "trinity" concept, referring to a godhead (cf. Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:9). The spirit which ordained Paul ordained this gospel. If the doctrine opposes Christ, the spirit was not Yahshua. Paul, with the spurring or goad of Dionysus continues his paganizing of the Christian faith.
Festus says to Paul "You are out of your mind Paul. Your great learning is driving you mad."
Festus is pointing out that the Hebrew Messiah identifying Himself as the son of Zeus is an absurdity. He was right. However, Festus adds, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Clearly if he could keep to his Roman pantheon of gods then he would accept the Messiah, since the Messiah was nothing more than another being in the pantheon.
Paul to the Greeks continues along with this thinking. Saying, "For we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28), adopted from Aratus, speaking of Zeus. Paul is implicit, the god of your Aratus is my god, and the Hail Zeus is his son.
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28). Epimenides, speaking of Zeus says, "For in thee we live and move and have our being." Epimenides says, "The Cretians, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies," Paul adopts this at Titus 1:12.
This was adapted from Epimenides' Cretica. It was a poem criticizing the Cretians for building a tomb for Zeus, Epimenides believing Zeus to be eternal. So what Paul is actually doing here is cursing the Cretians because in fact his god is in fact Zeus.
I Corinthians 15:33 "...evil communications corrupt good manners." Menander of Athens "Bad company corrupts good character."
Buddha "Work out your own salvation." Paul at Philemon 2:12 "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
He also adapts a quote from Publius Terentius Afer at I Timothy 5:4.
The Hail Zeus was preached to the Greeks, the followers of Zeus. The Messiah came as "Hail Zeus", son of Zeus, and any Greek or Roman could accept that. Some used the word "poetry" saying Paul quotes "pagan poetry". It is really pagan theology or pagan scriptures he quotes. By quoting it and pasing it off as from God he is validating it. His use of "godhead" is another throwback to pagan theology.
Constantine
This doctrine of appeasement we see in the conversion of the Roman empire. The Christo-philosophy didn't jeopardize or supplant Roman paganism at all but was only a supplement. The Catholic church today is evidence with its vestments, relics, Mariolatry, Eucharist, and images. The Saturnalia was continued and carries on today as Christmas. The Sunday of Christ's resurrection came to coincide with the feast the fertility goddess Ishtar becoming Easter, another pagan revelry. The Christianity we had passed onto us today represents less the faith of the apostles than it does the Roman paganism. Today we pray to Paul's Hail Zeus rather than YHWH's Yahshua. Paul told Gentiles of the permissibility of meats sacrificed to idols, while Christ refutes this at Revelation 2:14.
______
Clearly, Paul's theology is formed around the belief that the Messiah is the divine son of Zeus and that he exists in some sort of godhead relationship with his father and mother. Paul never came to confirm this was his view but he does all but confirm it in his letters to the Gentiles. In conclusion, whoever it was that spoke to Paul on the Damascus road was using a cover identity of Dionysus and brought Paul to, instead of preaching Christ, to preach Zeusian religion to pagans.
Guile, Paul, and the 144,000
There is a man I am acquainted with that formerly I would refer to as a friend. I cannot affirm that now as when he discovered my anti-Trinitarian views he was pretty upset about that, if not feeling betrayed. I will say here and now that it is not my policy to turn my back on anyone, but for those who turn their back on me, I can only extend my hand of fellowship in the future and be open to continuing dialogue.
In one of the last several conversations he expressed his feeling that there would be a group in the last days who believed themselves to be prophets or among the 144,000, or some other legendary group, implying that he was starting to wonder about my authenticity, especially as he understands that I am "skeptical" of Paul. Well, skeptical is an understatement. I deny him as being scriptural altogether along with the rest of the New Testament. The only parts of the New Testament which are inspired are the words of the prophets in it. The apostles never had the authority to write infallible and inspired declarations like the prophets did, and Paul certainly wasn't an apostle. Only prophets spoke (and wrote) the words of God and that was how it always was. Yeshua was a prophet and so He had the power to speak the words of God. Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ so that is inspired as the final book speaking of the end of days.
The reason I am writing this morning is to speak about us, the us of Revelation 14.
Revelation 14:5
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
Paul writes, in 2 Corinthians 12:16,
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
______________________
What you have here is a dishonest, lying charlatan. We cannot in good conscience assign to him a status of being among the inspired authors of Scriptures but can indicate him only as being a liar. He is not inspired, instead he borrows from pagan "poets", as some sources put it, who were really Greek theologians of the Roman pantheon, and he clearly is under some impression from the encounter with "Christ" at the Damascene road, where this "Christ" borrows the words of Bacchus, in the Bacchae, that the father of Christ is identical to the chief Roman god. The spirit itself was not Christ, but one that was very effective in turning Paul out to serve as a deflection for future followers of Christ. That is, to turn them to a lawless faith consumed with the hate that empowered Paul to engage in his reign of murder against the Christians of his time. He only thought he was a pillar when he was really nothing.
As the 144,000 we will assign no status which cedes any special designation to this man. Those among us who teach so now, I speak with vision that they will not speak to this effect in the future.
In one of the last several conversations he expressed his feeling that there would be a group in the last days who believed themselves to be prophets or among the 144,000, or some other legendary group, implying that he was starting to wonder about my authenticity, especially as he understands that I am "skeptical" of Paul. Well, skeptical is an understatement. I deny him as being scriptural altogether along with the rest of the New Testament. The only parts of the New Testament which are inspired are the words of the prophets in it. The apostles never had the authority to write infallible and inspired declarations like the prophets did, and Paul certainly wasn't an apostle. Only prophets spoke (and wrote) the words of God and that was how it always was. Yeshua was a prophet and so He had the power to speak the words of God. Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ so that is inspired as the final book speaking of the end of days.
The reason I am writing this morning is to speak about us, the us of Revelation 14.
Revelation 14:5
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
Paul writes, in 2 Corinthians 12:16,
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
______________________
What you have here is a dishonest, lying charlatan. We cannot in good conscience assign to him a status of being among the inspired authors of Scriptures but can indicate him only as being a liar. He is not inspired, instead he borrows from pagan "poets", as some sources put it, who were really Greek theologians of the Roman pantheon, and he clearly is under some impression from the encounter with "Christ" at the Damascene road, where this "Christ" borrows the words of Bacchus, in the Bacchae, that the father of Christ is identical to the chief Roman god. The spirit itself was not Christ, but one that was very effective in turning Paul out to serve as a deflection for future followers of Christ. That is, to turn them to a lawless faith consumed with the hate that empowered Paul to engage in his reign of murder against the Christians of his time. He only thought he was a pillar when he was really nothing.
As the 144,000 we will assign no status which cedes any special designation to this man. Those among us who teach so now, I speak with vision that they will not speak to this effect in the future.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Virginity and having children
Many of you Christians who find yourselves virgins now and wanting to marry eventually, some of you even soon, need to answer a question first. My prescription is you wait a few more years before marrying and having children. The forecast is very gloomy currently and I suggest that now is no time to be having children. You are better for now if you save your virginity and have no children going into the last days than to have children and go into the last days. My belief, which I derive from the abundance of signs being given us currently, is that those days are very close and so I do believe strongly that now would be a bad time for having children. I would recommend waiting at least 3-5 years before seriously considering marriage or children. Why do I say that? Because in 3-5 years, those of you who disagree with me now will change your minds.
Let's ask: Will things be better in a few years or will they be better? Will you have a better paying job in a few years or lesser paying, making more money or less money? Will you be promoted in a few years or will you be unemployed? Some of you may be concerned about savings. In a few years, will you have saved what you plan on saving or will you have saved less?
A question you might have been asked: "Would you like to have children some day?" I suggest we move beyond what we would like to do and ask ourselves if it is fair to be bringing children into a world in a climate of economic uncertainty, dismal job numbers, escalating debt, and imminent collapse and secondly, ask of God what He would like us to do, not what we would like.
What does the Bible say about the children in those days?
There are a couple things.
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them who give suck in those days!
2 Kings 6:26-31 tells a story about threats to children during times of trouble.
The story tells how a woman asks a lady to kill her son and cook him this first day and then the next day the other woman will kill her son and cook him. This was during a time of incredible famine and the lady found that the offer was fair. She killed her son and they ate him. The next day, she returns to the lady who first offered the deal and asks her to present her son that they might cook and eat him. But this
woman changed her mind and put her son in hiding.
Do you want to face the very real possibility that if you have children in the near future, that you may have to fight off people who would like to eat your kids? There will be people in those days who will want to eat children, not theirs, but yours. There will be no buying or selling without the mark so their may be people who refuse the mark who still don't have a problem with eating children but there might also be people who do have the mark that because they are filled with such incredible evil they may like to eat children as a form of persecution against the Christians. There are things that society agrees are terrible and that no one should ever have to face. I think this is a fair candidate for that distinction. No one should have their children threatened by cannibals.
As terrible as it sounds, it is said that today in North Korea, there have been cases where parents ate their own children because of the terrible famine there. It has also been suggested that cannibalism may have even occurred during the Great Depression in America. Of course there was the Donner party and a soccer team that crashed in the Andes, Peru I believe, so when the Tribulation period does begin, this is not an unlikely scenario, or even a threat which should be taken lightly leading into those days.
Of course this is not the only fear. Starving children is another reality that some will have to address. For every additional child in the home, the responsibilities and trials of the parent/s will be that much more increased. The people who will be most successful in those days, I suspect, will be those who are responsible only for themselves who also have a large measure of mobility that families will not have. It
will be very necessary for many people to relocate over very long distances and this could be enormously difficult for people who have built themselves a life and are raising a family, for instance, in a home they have built. Moving a whole family under the circumstances that will be common in those days will be no easy task. Imagine taking your entire family, getting on a great ship with them taking no clothes, no belongings, no car, but only the money that you have to your name (in pre-mark times) and starting a completely "new life" in a country that you have never visited, know nothing about, do not speak the language, or know even one person there. Not easy with or without children but it would clearly be more difficult with a family than by yourself.
Some of these questions people in the near future will have to answer. Many from fear will choose to not do what is necessary to protect themselves because the sacrifice seems too great. They will take their chances in a place like my country where they will almost certainly die. Some will choose to stay because they do not see the danger that is coming.
Because of these several points, it is my suggestion that you become less concerned with the things of this world and pursuing them now and become more concerned with pursuing the things of God.
Let's ask: Will things be better in a few years or will they be better? Will you have a better paying job in a few years or lesser paying, making more money or less money? Will you be promoted in a few years or will you be unemployed? Some of you may be concerned about savings. In a few years, will you have saved what you plan on saving or will you have saved less?
A question you might have been asked: "Would you like to have children some day?" I suggest we move beyond what we would like to do and ask ourselves if it is fair to be bringing children into a world in a climate of economic uncertainty, dismal job numbers, escalating debt, and imminent collapse and secondly, ask of God what He would like us to do, not what we would like.
What does the Bible say about the children in those days?
There are a couple things.
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them who give suck in those days!
2 Kings 6:26-31 tells a story about threats to children during times of trouble.
The story tells how a woman asks a lady to kill her son and cook him this first day and then the next day the other woman will kill her son and cook him. This was during a time of incredible famine and the lady found that the offer was fair. She killed her son and they ate him. The next day, she returns to the lady who first offered the deal and asks her to present her son that they might cook and eat him. But this
woman changed her mind and put her son in hiding.
Do you want to face the very real possibility that if you have children in the near future, that you may have to fight off people who would like to eat your kids? There will be people in those days who will want to eat children, not theirs, but yours. There will be no buying or selling without the mark so their may be people who refuse the mark who still don't have a problem with eating children but there might also be people who do have the mark that because they are filled with such incredible evil they may like to eat children as a form of persecution against the Christians. There are things that society agrees are terrible and that no one should ever have to face. I think this is a fair candidate for that distinction. No one should have their children threatened by cannibals.
As terrible as it sounds, it is said that today in North Korea, there have been cases where parents ate their own children because of the terrible famine there. It has also been suggested that cannibalism may have even occurred during the Great Depression in America. Of course there was the Donner party and a soccer team that crashed in the Andes, Peru I believe, so when the Tribulation period does begin, this is not an unlikely scenario, or even a threat which should be taken lightly leading into those days.
Of course this is not the only fear. Starving children is another reality that some will have to address. For every additional child in the home, the responsibilities and trials of the parent/s will be that much more increased. The people who will be most successful in those days, I suspect, will be those who are responsible only for themselves who also have a large measure of mobility that families will not have. It
will be very necessary for many people to relocate over very long distances and this could be enormously difficult for people who have built themselves a life and are raising a family, for instance, in a home they have built. Moving a whole family under the circumstances that will be common in those days will be no easy task. Imagine taking your entire family, getting on a great ship with them taking no clothes, no belongings, no car, but only the money that you have to your name (in pre-mark times) and starting a completely "new life" in a country that you have never visited, know nothing about, do not speak the language, or know even one person there. Not easy with or without children but it would clearly be more difficult with a family than by yourself.
Some of these questions people in the near future will have to answer. Many from fear will choose to not do what is necessary to protect themselves because the sacrifice seems too great. They will take their chances in a place like my country where they will almost certainly die. Some will choose to stay because they do not see the danger that is coming.
Because of these several points, it is my suggestion that you become less concerned with the things of this world and pursuing them now and become more concerned with pursuing the things of God.
Wait here at Jerusalem
I don't think these words actually appear anywhere in the Bible, but the disciples were told that Christ must go in order that the Comforter may come. So after Christ left, it was the disciples who were left to wait at Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came down. It was on the Day of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit came down and the men and women began to speak with other tongues and many were saved.
What happened to me recently, a couple weeks ago today on Wednesday, I had been going through some serious troubles with my neighbors (not my next door neighbors particularly, but more the people in the larger neighborhood). Many of them are smokers but are cheap and useless no-good low-lifes and will not buy their own cigarettes. Either that, or they buy them and then they still ask you (more like harass you) for cigarettes, sometimes several times a day, because they want to smoke theirs AND they want to smoke YOURS too. My faith in humanity was being completely destroyed incrementally day by day and I was growing more nihilistic and misanthropic in hatred towards the degenerate human race. It all came to a head on Wednesday when I woke up with a weighty question on my mind: Should I quit smoking today?
I had the week before bought an electric cigarette so that I could legitimately tell these beggars that I did not have a cigarette and to avoid any more trouble. Smoking it for about a week went a long way towards reduction of my nicotine intake. I felt as if in some way I had already quit partially since I had not smoked a cigarette in so many days. But I felt deep within me, very much as if it were the voice of God, "Wait here at Jerusalem [for three days]". I put 'for three days' in brackets because it wasn't explicit but it was understood. The first part of the message I did not hear or sense in any way that I can explain, but it was just like some one passing you a small note on a sheet of paper. I knew that morning that I would go and buy one last pack of cigarettes that day and that I would be healed Friday.
I bought that pack of cigarettes and I wanted to make it last about three days. It took me all day Wednesday and all day Thursday to smoke it. I desired to finish my last one some time Friday morning just before going to bed. I would go to bed a smoker and wake up the next day a non-smoker. And that is basically what happened. I smoked my last cigarette just before 2 am Friday morning. Went to bed some time later and
woke up Friday and I was healed.
I was on the phone with someone that Wednesday I think and I told him what my plan was. I said that God had been growing on me and teaching me that as a saved Christian I could no longer continue doing things my way but I must do things His way. He made a very skeptical comment against what I said, saying, "[If you're continuing to smoke], it sounds like you are trying to still do things your way."
This remark raises very serious doubts against this man. This is the sort of discouraging comment that could cause others in my position to abandon their plan and to continue smoking. The doubt it would inspire in that person could be doubt that they could fulfill their plan or lead to other doubts about that person's relationship with God. I consider it a harmful comment that I would say would be unwise to make. Neither is it lead by the Spirit of God. I'm not calling into question his sincerity but I am concerned that he may not be seeing the
forest for the trees in some areas.
To be specific, I told him that night that for a few days I was on my mountain. In the Bible, there were times when people needed time at the mountain in order to prepare themselves by training or education, for reconciliation, or to come closer to God before they could go about with their mission. Moses was an example of this. He was lead to Mount Sinai on occasion so that he could receive revelation from God
and instruction on leading the people, and to receive the law. But I think there is one story that is the best example of what I am talking
about.
Judges 11:30-40
Jephthah, a judge of Israel, was seeking to receive victory in battle from the Lord. He foolishly made a vow with his mouth that on the way back from the battle he received victory in, that whosoever should come first out of his house to greet him would be offered up as a burnt offering to the Lord. He was greatly disheartened when after arriving it was his daughter who came out of the house (What did you think was
going to happen?). When he saw this, he cried, "Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back."
"And she said unto her father, let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows."
"And he said, Go, And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains."
vv-35-38
_____
I can make no suggestion here for anyone, but I do know what was true for me. It was revealed that I should wait at Jerusalem, or really, my own personal mountain, for a few days, until I was endued with the full power to be able to quit. I'm not saying if you are a heroin addict that it is okay if you are thinking about qutting to go shoot up for a few more days and then quit. I can't say that because it is understood that any one time you are shooting up might be your last time to shoot up. If God told you to, that would clearly be different but no man (unless he is a prophet moved by the Spirit to speak the will of God to you) can give you direction on that.
Peter, who spoke the first sermon at Pentecost, what if he was moving only by his own power and will and did not obediently wait for the Holy Spirit to arrive? If he had went about prior to that preaching then we can be certain he would have failed miserably and today he might not have been remembered as the hero we revere him as being. It was the perfect will of God that he wait, and the other disciples wait, at Jerusalem for a few days until He was ready to endue them with the power to begin fulfilling His plans for them. If you want to know why He didn't just do it then but wanted to wait instead, I cannot answer that AND I am skeptical of anyone who tries to answer it.
Finally, I want to run these ideas by you one more time. But first I will say, if God is giving you the power and the grace to deal with a problem you are intensely struggling with, to deny it then, you will go back to your addiction 7x over. If you have already cursed yourself by going back and have made it 7x worse by so doing, then it becomes 49x worse. If God gives you the commandment, He is behind you 100% and
will see you live to do it. But you can under no circumstances deny this power, or you will come very close to committing blasphemy, a full rejection of God.
You have a problem. God wants you to address it. He commands that you abstain or He may reveal a plan for your healing. He might have you go up on your mountain for a few days just to gather your thoughts, to remand yourself back unto God, and to gain peace with what must be done. And then He will finally call you back down from the mountain as He told Moses (Ex 32:7) and it is at Jerusalem where you will find your
healing. It is at the New Jerusalem where the tree of life will be planted which bears fruit for the healing of the nations (Rev 22:2). "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16). It is in the Jerusalem in your heart, this holy temple, where God will perform a work in you.
What happened to me recently, a couple weeks ago today on Wednesday, I had been going through some serious troubles with my neighbors (not my next door neighbors particularly, but more the people in the larger neighborhood). Many of them are smokers but are cheap and useless no-good low-lifes and will not buy their own cigarettes. Either that, or they buy them and then they still ask you (more like harass you) for cigarettes, sometimes several times a day, because they want to smoke theirs AND they want to smoke YOURS too. My faith in humanity was being completely destroyed incrementally day by day and I was growing more nihilistic and misanthropic in hatred towards the degenerate human race. It all came to a head on Wednesday when I woke up with a weighty question on my mind: Should I quit smoking today?
I had the week before bought an electric cigarette so that I could legitimately tell these beggars that I did not have a cigarette and to avoid any more trouble. Smoking it for about a week went a long way towards reduction of my nicotine intake. I felt as if in some way I had already quit partially since I had not smoked a cigarette in so many days. But I felt deep within me, very much as if it were the voice of God, "Wait here at Jerusalem [for three days]". I put 'for three days' in brackets because it wasn't explicit but it was understood. The first part of the message I did not hear or sense in any way that I can explain, but it was just like some one passing you a small note on a sheet of paper. I knew that morning that I would go and buy one last pack of cigarettes that day and that I would be healed Friday.
I bought that pack of cigarettes and I wanted to make it last about three days. It took me all day Wednesday and all day Thursday to smoke it. I desired to finish my last one some time Friday morning just before going to bed. I would go to bed a smoker and wake up the next day a non-smoker. And that is basically what happened. I smoked my last cigarette just before 2 am Friday morning. Went to bed some time later and
woke up Friday and I was healed.
I was on the phone with someone that Wednesday I think and I told him what my plan was. I said that God had been growing on me and teaching me that as a saved Christian I could no longer continue doing things my way but I must do things His way. He made a very skeptical comment against what I said, saying, "[If you're continuing to smoke], it sounds like you are trying to still do things your way."
This remark raises very serious doubts against this man. This is the sort of discouraging comment that could cause others in my position to abandon their plan and to continue smoking. The doubt it would inspire in that person could be doubt that they could fulfill their plan or lead to other doubts about that person's relationship with God. I consider it a harmful comment that I would say would be unwise to make. Neither is it lead by the Spirit of God. I'm not calling into question his sincerity but I am concerned that he may not be seeing the
forest for the trees in some areas.
To be specific, I told him that night that for a few days I was on my mountain. In the Bible, there were times when people needed time at the mountain in order to prepare themselves by training or education, for reconciliation, or to come closer to God before they could go about with their mission. Moses was an example of this. He was lead to Mount Sinai on occasion so that he could receive revelation from God
and instruction on leading the people, and to receive the law. But I think there is one story that is the best example of what I am talking
about.
Judges 11:30-40
Jephthah, a judge of Israel, was seeking to receive victory in battle from the Lord. He foolishly made a vow with his mouth that on the way back from the battle he received victory in, that whosoever should come first out of his house to greet him would be offered up as a burnt offering to the Lord. He was greatly disheartened when after arriving it was his daughter who came out of the house (What did you think was
going to happen?). When he saw this, he cried, "Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back."
"And she said unto her father, let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows."
"And he said, Go, And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains."
vv-35-38
_____
I can make no suggestion here for anyone, but I do know what was true for me. It was revealed that I should wait at Jerusalem, or really, my own personal mountain, for a few days, until I was endued with the full power to be able to quit. I'm not saying if you are a heroin addict that it is okay if you are thinking about qutting to go shoot up for a few more days and then quit. I can't say that because it is understood that any one time you are shooting up might be your last time to shoot up. If God told you to, that would clearly be different but no man (unless he is a prophet moved by the Spirit to speak the will of God to you) can give you direction on that.
Peter, who spoke the first sermon at Pentecost, what if he was moving only by his own power and will and did not obediently wait for the Holy Spirit to arrive? If he had went about prior to that preaching then we can be certain he would have failed miserably and today he might not have been remembered as the hero we revere him as being. It was the perfect will of God that he wait, and the other disciples wait, at Jerusalem for a few days until He was ready to endue them with the power to begin fulfilling His plans for them. If you want to know why He didn't just do it then but wanted to wait instead, I cannot answer that AND I am skeptical of anyone who tries to answer it.
Finally, I want to run these ideas by you one more time. But first I will say, if God is giving you the power and the grace to deal with a problem you are intensely struggling with, to deny it then, you will go back to your addiction 7x over. If you have already cursed yourself by going back and have made it 7x worse by so doing, then it becomes 49x worse. If God gives you the commandment, He is behind you 100% and
will see you live to do it. But you can under no circumstances deny this power, or you will come very close to committing blasphemy, a full rejection of God.
You have a problem. God wants you to address it. He commands that you abstain or He may reveal a plan for your healing. He might have you go up on your mountain for a few days just to gather your thoughts, to remand yourself back unto God, and to gain peace with what must be done. And then He will finally call you back down from the mountain as He told Moses (Ex 32:7) and it is at Jerusalem where you will find your
healing. It is at the New Jerusalem where the tree of life will be planted which bears fruit for the healing of the nations (Rev 22:2). "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16). It is in the Jerusalem in your heart, this holy temple, where God will perform a work in you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)