On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:42:31 -0400, mikey dee <aamichaellg@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:14:47 -0400, NP-f31
><dudewiththe(REMOVE)hair@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:02:16 -0400, mikey dee <aamichaellg@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip all the history>
>>
>>My Dearest Michael,
>>
>>You can say no. Let the torch pass to another. You have suffered
>>enough already. There is no need for you to battle alone. If God wants
>>to kick Satan's ass, he can do it whenever and wherever he wants.
>>Revelations implies that God is not omnipotent, lose half of the
>>gentiles? Why?
>>
>God doesn't lose the gentiles but only judges them to condemnation.
>Hell is an encasement of freezer burn because it is cold and black. It
>is a place for the condemned of which God encases those that have
>rebuked Him. So hell is a part of the final kingdom (God's) of which
>there is a new heaven and new earth to come. Hell is just a place
>minor compared to the rest of the new that comes finally for eternal
>occupancy.
This is what happens when Christians try to combine teachings of the
Old Testament texts with the teachings the New Testament. Jehovah, of
the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, was a jealous God. He said so
himself, he didn't want you worshipping any other Gods. He devoted
four of the Ten Commandments to that concept. What does that tell you?
It tells you that God knows there are other Gods or at least another
God that he is jealous of.
Jesus was all about love and inclusion. The New Testament is about
forgiveness and loving others as you love yourself. That doesn't fit
well with Old Testament Jehovah. Old Testament Jehovah would smite the
pee out of you, he would turn you into a pillar of salt. He was about
control and direct intervention. New Testament God forgives you, he
loves you, belief is a choice. It is sometimes impossible to reconcile
the two Gods.
The Old Testament was included in the Christian Bible because up until
200AD or so, Christians thought of themselves as Jews, just a branch
of Judaism. But half of the New Testament texts were outlawed starting
in the 200s because there was a power struggle in the Church. Please
see: 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels for the historical
background.
>>Look, I've studied the Bible too (though not in the original Hebrew,
>>good on yer, lad!) and the truth of the matter is that the John who
>>wrote the book of Revelations was a flipped out aestetic. Dude was
>>trippin', just like Coleridge when he wrote Xanadu. He starved himself
>>into a state of delerium and Revelations is what he came up with. It
>>could have just as easily been titled 'Head Bump' and would have been
>>just as accurate.
>>
>I don't know. I have even heard that Apostle John was on opiates to
>induce delerium upon writing it. But it states in that book only of
>the whole Bible that it must NOT be changed even as the rest of the
>Bible can be rewritten to be improved upon. Revelation is the end time
>scrolls of Daniel. So they are tied together and those scrolls have
>been slowly opening to my eyes as the higher power reveals them to me.
Daniel is Old Testament, it will naturally be in conflict with Jesus'
teachings.
>>You want a REAL revelation? Read the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of
>>Mary Magdalene, they will set your understanding of the nature of
>>Christ and God on it's ear.
>>
>Is that in the apocrypha? Funny, I don't remember those books. Or are
>they seperate writings that come out of the Catholic church moreso
>around 600 AD? Even the DeVince Code written by Dan Brown (a Catholic)
>is a precursor to the end times when it cries out that Jesus Christ
>had children. Those codes and such are pieces to the puzzle of which I
>can crack and present to the church what they want to hear. Then I can
>collect the prize. The DeVince Code was written moreso for Michael
>which they believe to be Jesus Christ. Yes, Michael has sired a
>daughter and there is yet two sons to come but not identical. That is
>in my visions.
Dan Brown's earlier book 'Demons and Angels' goes into more detail
about the lost gospels (in a fictional setting of course) and why they
were surpressed. The answer will surprise you, but you will never look
at St. Peter, the First Bishop of Rome the same way again. Peter was a
revisionist and self promoter who was jealous of Mary Magdalene's
influence with Jesus. He spent a lot of time and effort to discredit
her. See for yourself.
>The Maccabees, Esdras, Book of Wisdom, Baruch, Esther, Ecclesiasticus,
>Tobit, Judith, etc. of the old testament originated during the time of
>the establishment of the Roman empire and written so many years after
>Malachi. Then new testament writings originated from 300 AD into 600
>AD that show evidence of nonsubstantial gospel origins.
Check your timelines, there is proof that some of the early gospels
were written by 89AD, less than 50 years after Jesus' death.
> What I mean by
>nonsubstantial is that they bear no substance to originating from the
>Apostles.
>>Why were those two books banned from the Bible and not Revelations?
>>Thomas and Mary Magdalene were Jesus' favorites, not Peter.
>>Revelations was written 200 years after Christ. Which would you think
>>might be more relevant to the teachings of Christ? It was included to
>>serve the purpose of the early Catholic Church, they need to scare the
>>congregation into obediance and obeisance. The Book of Revelations is
>>the meanderings of a madman. True! It has more in common with Norse
>>Mythology and Hindu Mythology than Christian teachings. You know I'm
>>right about this, you've been studying hard.
>>
>Peter holds the key to hell and was told to go to the Roman church to
>preach to them about revelations of the empire and their role in
>shaping religion from the gospels to the end times.
Peter holds the key to the rape of Christianity. Because of him Mary
Magdalene, who was probably Jesus' wife, was discredited and later
labeled a whore. Because of Peter's misogyny women couldn't be leaders
in the Church, even though they were the movers and shakers in many
communities.
There are too many contradictions between the New and Old Testaments.
I do not believe that God would lay waste to his creation, not when
the New Testament tells us that he loved the world so much, he
sacrificed his own son. When God stopped fucking with Abraham and put
his money where his mouth was, he was someone for me to believe in.
Mikey, you are an angel, but you're no angel of death. You're a
tortured soul who repents of his past and bears his guilt publicly.
You're already forgiven, mate. It's in the part of the Bible where
Jesus talks about love and forgiveness. Those are the only concepts
that matter. If you believe, you're saved.
I believe in you.
Love,
Doc
NP-f31
|
|