On the Trinity:

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
It's more significant than that. He claims Christ is Lord of Lords. The Old Testament says God is Lord of Lords. Thus the Bible says Christ and God are Lord of Lords. Either there are two Lord of Lords, or Christ and God are the same.
It doesn't matter what A Freeman claims about Jesus Christ.

It's absolutely irrelevant.


You ask A Freeman to show some logical consistency... and i agree that would be nice... but who cares what A Freeman thinks about Jesus Christ ?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,357
@A Freeman

Re Peter:

There's no contradiction. Your conclusion is drawn from non-sequiturs. Look:

Your scriptural reference:

Matt 10

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

This is in the context of the Little Commission where Jesus instructed His disciples to aid in the conversion the lost sheep (Israel). This does not include the Great Commission of the risen Jesus and the dispersion of the Apostles to go and baptize unto all nations:

Matt 28

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Peter obeyed Jesus Christ and went to the Gentile nations, which is testified in the First Epistle of Peter:

1 Peter 1

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,


To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:


Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

Really ... "satanic nonsense" (smh). The Knowledge of Good and Evil from a slave of the Law in all its glory! You're the living proof that people's minds are blinded in the reading of the Old Testament (2 Cor 3:14).

Why not show me the satanic content of the Acts of Peter instead of this mindless zealotic slandering.

As we have seen above, Peter going to Rome in no measurable way contradicts the command of Christ for He said "go and baptize unto all nations". Rome was not off-limits.

That same Eusebius, in that same book, wrote that Peter was crucified at Rome. See below.

Your scriptural reference:

John 21

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”


And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”


Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

The above verses do not say Peter would die of old age, it says he would die in old age. Again, you've made a non-sequitur fallacy, which is weird, since you're the logics expert and all.

Not only does it not say what you said it says, it has symbolic language possibly alluding to Peter's destiny being crucified (stretched out hands, girded (= binded) by another (to a cross?), carried where he doesn't wish to go (place of execution?)). It is typical Christian scripture that is subject to different levels of (non-contradictory!) interpretations. The literal or somatic sense of scripture, that which speaks to the body. The more profound deeper or psychic sense of scripture conveying earthly wisdom, which speaks to the soul. And thirdly, the spiritual or pneumatic interpretation, for those capable of hearing / understanding higher wisdoms, the mysteries of God.

Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters — that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit. - Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, 1:11.


With regards to Peter's death, the following is by no means conclusive proof, but it sure contrasts your perverted opinion of the Acts of Peter with the possible truth contained within.

+/- 200 AD:

How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! - Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 36.

At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. - Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.

Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 1.


Written in 1st century AD:

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (5)

1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.

2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.

3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.

4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
You're still seeing everything upside down and backwards, through human eyes, trying to hammer fit your triangular Roman Catholic programming into a round hole.

If the so-called "Gospel of Peter" or "the Acts of Peter" were actually genuine, or at least believable enough for them to pass them off as genuine, the RCC would have long ago incorporated them into their corrupted versions of the Bible long ago.

But they didn't. Because they are obvious forgeries, written well AFTER the death of Peter by someone else, probably in an attempt to back-fill the so-called early papal history before Constantine.

There is absolutely no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, nor any historical evidence that he was crucified on an inverted cross, which is an overtly satanic symbol. Furthermore, there are additional Scriptural references that tell us Peter was never in Rome.

Galatians 2:7-9
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles, including Gentile Rome) was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Israelites), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
2: 9 And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision*.

Peter’s assignment: Circumcision = Jews (Jerusalem, Joppa, etc.)
Paul’s assignment: Uncircumcision = Gentiles (e.g. Rome)

Paul, in his letter to the Romans sent during the time that Peter was purportedly in Rome according to the RCC (c. 41-66 AD), sent instructions to the faithful there, along with greetings to at least two dozen people in Rome, none of which were Peter. Not only would it have been very rude for Paul to send a letter to Rome and purposefully exclude sending his greetings to their alleged leader, but it would have been completely unnecessary for Paul to send instructions at all had Peter actually been there. And in that letter, Paul wrote the following:

Romans 15:20 -Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

So are we to believe Paul went to Rome to build/preach the gospel on Peter’s “foundation/territory”???

Or that Paul was trying to take Gentile Rome back from a disobedient Peter, who could only have gone to Rome if he violated Christ's COMMAND? It doesn't matter what the Roman Catholic church wishes to call it in a vain effort to belittle Christ's COMMAND to His Disciples, it was still a COMMAND. “Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

This wasn't a "little commission", nor was it in contradiction with Christ's Command make disciples of all nations. The the Disciples were sent out to the all of the Israelite nations of the world, which were already scattered at that time, as you've quoted from 1 Peter 1:1.

So it absolutely follows that Peter was never in Rome, not only because it would have contradicted Christ's COMMAND to His Disciples to follow in His Footsteps, but because there is no Scriptural nor historical evidence of any kind that Peter was actually in Rome, much less that he was martyred on a satanic, inverted cross.

What did Christ tell His Disciples about His OWN Mission?

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the "lost sheep" of the "House of Israel" (the Ten "Lost" Tribes of Israel).

Which would explain why His Disciples and Peter were instructed to do the same. The ten "lost" tribes of Israel were the ten northern tribes that were taken into captivity in Assyria c. 722 BC and never returned to the land of Israel, but instead migrated throughout what is today Europe, eventually arriving in the British Isles, where Jesus spent His formative years.

And with regard to The Law, it's this simple...

God wants us to love and obey Him and His Law.

Satan wants us to disobey God and His Law.

That's why Satan has everyone looking for convenient excuses for not keeping The Law.

Father gave us The Law to protect us from evil and to set and keep us free. It isn't grievous to keep The Law, nor is it "slavery" as the Christian churches wrongly teach; it is the exact opposite.

Sin = breaking The Law, so all those who aren't keeping The Law are slaves to SIN. And the wages of sin are DEATH. Always have been, always will be (Ezek. 18:4, 20, Rom. 6:23).

Christ paid for our past sins (Rom. 3:25); He did NOT suffer the agony of the cross to grant us the freedom to sin (break The Law) with impunity. That's why Christ said that heaven and earth would pass away before the slightest punctuation mark (neither jot nor tittle - Matt. 5:18) would pass from the National, Moral Law of Israel (God's Law - found in the first give books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).

If we would all keep The Law, the world would become the Kingdom of Heaven on earth that it was always meant to be. As long as the world continues to rebel against it, it will become more sinful and evil, until we would completely annihilate each other without Divine Intervention to save those few who should be saved.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the Elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

It seems also noteworthy to share that Paul, in his letter to the Romans, told us that he himself was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25), that The Law is Holy, Just and Good (Rom. 7:12), that he was establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31), and that only DOERS of The Law would be JUSTIFIED (Rom. 2:13).

Give up the Roman propaganda, lies and false idols and come to Christ, The Law made flesh. Only by knowing the Truth (Christ) can the Truth set you free (from sin and death).
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
You're still seeing everything upside down and backwards, through human eyes, trying to hammer fit your triangular Roman Catholic programming into a round hole.

If the so-called "Gospel of Peter" or "the Acts of Peter" were actually genuine, or at least believable enough for them to pass them off as genuine, the RCC would have long ago incorporated them into their corrupted versions of the Bible long ago.

But they didn't. Because they are obvious forgeries, written well AFTER the death of Peter by someone else, probably in an attempt to back-fill the so-called early papal history before Constantine.

There is absolutely no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, nor any historical evidence that he was crucified on an inverted cross, which is an overtly satanic symbol.
You would render the Petrine Cross satanic solely because of modern Satanists' tendencies to invert Christian symbols. This has zero historical relevance and never did this have any negative connotations in the Church until modern history. It's a symbol of the Rock on which the Church of Christ was built, who gave his life for Christ by sharing His passion, but refused to be crucified as His Lord because he deemed himself unworthy. That's the Catholic meaning and anything else is nothing more than a rabid expression of anti-Catholic hatred which is manifest in your typicial Protestant and Islamic talking points.

Secondly, you would say the Gospel and Acts of Peter are forgeries because they weren't accepted by the Catholic Church, which is a fake church in itself according to you. Great bit of lucid reasoning there.

What do you consider historical evidence anyway? (this is a rhetorical question, you need not answer) The accounts mentioning Peter in Rome would be accepted as evidence (evidence does not equal proof) according to historical method.

Furthermore, there are additional Scriptural references that tell us Peter was never in Rome.

Galatians 2:7-9
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles, including Gentile Rome) was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Israelites), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
2: 9 And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision*.

Peter’s assignment: Circumcision = Jews (Jerusalem, Joppa, etc.)
Paul’s assignment: Uncircumcision = Gentiles (e.g. Rome)

Paul, in his letter to the Romans sent during the time that Peter was purportedly in Rome according to the RCC (c. 41-66 AD), sent instructions to the faithful there, along with greetings to at least two dozen people in Rome, none of which were Peter. Not only would it have been very rude for Paul to send a letter to Rome and purposefully exclude sending his greetings to their alleged leader, but it would have been completely unnecessary for Paul to send instructions at all had Peter actually been there. And in that letter, Paul wrote the following:

Romans 15:20 -Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

So are we to believe Paul went to Rome to build/preach the gospel on Peter’s “foundation/territory”???
This is all fairly irrelevant because the only stumbling block concerns the actual date of Peter's presence in Rome, not whether or not he was actually there at some point.

Re Peter going to the circumcised:

1. That he was assigned to go to the circumcised at one point, doesn't mean he didn't go to Rome at another point. (non-sequitur)
2. Gentiles does not equal Rome. Gentiles means those who are not Jews, which isn't limited to Rome.
3. It was James who stayed at Jerusalem with the Israelites. Peter was sent to the Jews outside of Israel who had or had not already converted to Christianity, because Christian Jews had also been persecuted and expelled by the Jews.

None of what you say proves Peter was not in Rome. There's absolutely no way to extract that from scripture. And even if one could (which one couldn't), applying sola scriptura to establish historical facts is not a game I entertain, or should anyone, for that matter.

Or that Paul was trying to take Gentile Rome back from a disobedient Peter, who could only have gone to Rome if he violated Christ's COMMAND? It doesn't matter what the Roman Catholic church wishes to call it in a vain effort to belittle Christ's COMMAND to His Disciples, it was still a COMMAND. “Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

This wasn't a "little commission", nor was it in contradiction with Christ's Command make disciples of all nations. The the Disciples were sent out to the all of the Israelite nations of the world, which were already scattered at that time, as you've quoted from 1 Peter 1:1.
Right. Does it say "go and baptize unto all ISRAELITE nations"? Or are you twisting scriptures to your own benefit? Or are you inferring what the scriptures do not explicitly say? Hm. Pickle.

But this is an extension of your erroneous understanding of Gentile, it seems. It does not mean Rome, it means anyone who is not Jewish. Paul didn't go to Rome. He came under Roman captivity because of the Jews of Jerusalem and was sent there. After Jesus' mission in Israel was completed, the risen Jesus instructed the disciples to go to all nations, gentile or jew, and baptize them. This is Christianity 101. I've seen Judaizers before, but you're a special case.


I find it disturbing that you and your JAH brothers can get away with this butchering of Christian teachings and history whle making a claim to Christ.

You would go so far as to strip Jesus' greatest disciple, the one who recognized the Christ, the Son of the Living God, without revelation from flesh or blood, of his martyrdom, to validate your belief. There's some prince watching over this world who smiles at that.


More historical evidence:

Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans, 4
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.


Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.


Eusebius, Church History, Book II, 14
But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. Clad in divine armor like a noble commander of God, He carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.


Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, 14
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:


6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.


The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Ireneaus
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.



Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple 302unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul:


St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, Chapter 1
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
And with regard to The Law, it's this simple...

God wants us to love and obey Him and His Law.

Satan wants us to disobey God and His Law.

That's why Satan has everyone looking for convenient excuses for not keeping The Law.

Father gave us The Law to protect us from evil and to set and keep us free. It isn't grievous to keep The Law, nor is it "slavery" as the Christian churches wrongly teach; it is the exact opposite.

Sin = breaking The Law, so all those who aren't keeping The Law are slaves to SIN. And the wages of sin are DEATH. Always have been, always will be (Ezek. 18:4, 20, Rom. 6:23).

Christ paid for our past sins (Rom. 3:25); He did NOT suffer the agony of the cross to grant us the freedom to sin (break The Law) with impunity. That's why Christ said that heaven and earth would pass away before the slightest punctuation mark (neither jot nor tittle - Matt. 5:18) would pass from the National, Moral Law of Israel (God's Law - found in the first give books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).

If we would all keep The Law, the world would become the Kingdom of Heaven on earth that it was always meant to be. As long as the world continues to rebel against it, it will become more sinful and evil, until we would completely annihilate each other without Divine Intervention to save those few who should be saved.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the Elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

It seems also noteworthy to share that Paul, in his letter to the Romans, told us that he himself was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25), that The Law is Holy, Just and Good (Rom. 7:12), that he was establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31), and that only DOERS of The Law would be JUSTIFIED (Rom. 2:13).

Give up the Roman propaganda, lies and false idols and come to Christ, The Law made flesh. Only by knowing the Truth (Christ) can the Truth set you free (from sin and death).
I asked if Jesus broke the Law. A simple yes or no would suffice.

It seems to me that the reason for this avoidance of the simple Socratic method is because you're not willing to learn and exchange information. You're here to impose your view.

The (old) Law in Christianity refers to the Decalogue, not the Torah. Again, this is Christianity 101.

Obviously I'm not saying Jesus broke the Christian interpretation of the Law. I'm talking about your interpretation of the Law. Did Jesus break it or not?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,357
You're trying to argue that up is down and black is white, and it will NEVER work.

It absolutely does follow that Peter would not disobey Christ, as the RCC falsely claims he must have done, to allegedly become their first pope. There is zero scriptural evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, much less led a Roman church there, against Christ's Commandments.

It likewise absolutely follows that NON-JEWISH Rome was GENTILE. And for reference, the word "gentile" means "foreigner", i.e. a non-Israelite. So it applies to all those who were not descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel; both the 10-house "House of Israel" and also the 2-tribed "House of Judah" (Judah and Benjamin). Also, ALL Biblical prophecy about God's People is about the PEOPLE Israel, NOT some church or organized religion, nor even the land of Israel, currently occupied by counterfeit Jews (Ashkenazis).

That's why the good news message (Gospel) had to go to Israel first, so that they could then distribute it all over the world, just as the British (Ephraim) and Anglo-Saxon American people (Manasseh) have done.

Of course an upside down cross is a satanic symbol. Only Satan's "mother-church" (the great whore) could actually con people into believing such an obvious satanic symbol is somehow not a satanic symbol.

Revelation 17 and 18 describes the Roman Catholic church in great detail. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 calls the pope the "son of the destroyer". Christ told His TRUE Followers to call NO MAN FATHER UPON THE EARTH (Matt. 23:8-10 - He told His Disciples not to be priests, either) for good reason: because we all have ONE FATHER, Who is in HEAVEN.

So what does Roman Catholicism do? The exact opposite of course (Satan is Hebrew and means "the Opposer"). And then there's the pope, who has the supreme audacity to call himself "the Holy Father", a name reserved for God ALONE - John 17:11, i.e. he claims to be God Himself just as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 in its description of the pope.

Apparently, the only people that don't know (or won't admit) the Roman Catholic church actually worships Lucifer at their highest levels are their unwitting(?) parishioners.


Was Peter even a disciple after denying Christ?

Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples AND Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

And with regard to historical evidence, please see the link below for an example:-

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

NONE of this information, including pointing out that the 3=1 pagan Roman deity is unscriptural and NOT God, is "anti-Catholic"; it's the exact opposite. Anyone who knows the truth that every single Roman Catholic will follow Satan and the popes into The Fire on Judgment Day, and genuinely cares about their fate, would be doing everything in their power to share the truth with them before it's too late. So all of that's being seen upside down and backwards as well.

The Roman Catholic church will always defend its lies with its fabricated propaganda (more lies). That's all the so-called Gospel of Peter and the "Acts of Peter" are, and that's all they are: Roman propaganda, meant to bolster a made-up story about Simon Peter coming to Rome, to hide the fact it was Simon PATER, aka Simon the Sorcerer -- from Acts 8:9-24 - that actually went to Rome and founded the organization which eventually became the Roman Catholic church.

If Peter never went to Rome, then their entire house of cards comes tumbling down even if people aren't taking notice of the other overtly satanic things they do (e.g. raising and hiding p***phile priests, hoarding worldly wealth and treasures whilst people starve, etc. - see Matt. 6:24). So they have to hide the truth as much as they can, or it's game over for them and their lucrative business empire.

Not to worry though, it will be destroyed soon enough, exactly as Christ prophesied in His Revelation to John.

Hope this information is well-received as it's intended, and hope you have a good one.

God Bless.


You would render the Petrine Cross satanic solely because of modern Satanists' tendencies to invert Christian symbols. This has zero historical relevance and never did this have any negative connotations in the Church until modern history. It's a symbol of the Rock on which the Church of Christ was built, who gave his life for Christ by sharing His passion, but refused to be crucified as His Lord because he deemed himself unworthy. That's the Catholic meaning and anything else is nothing more than a rabid expression of anti-Catholic hatred which is manifest in your typicial Protestant and Islamic talking points.

Secondly, you would say the Gospel and Acts of Peter are forgeries because they weren't accepted by the Catholic Church, which is a fake church in itself according to you. Great bit of lucid reasoning there.

What do you consider historical evidence anyway? (this is a rhetorical question, you need not answer) The accounts mentioning Peter in Rome would be accepted as evidence (evidence does not equal proof) according to historical method.

This is all fairly irrelevent because the only stumbling block concerns the actual date of Peter's presence in Rome, not whether or not he was actually there at some point.

Re Peter going to the circumcised:

1. That he was assigned to go to the circumcised at one point, doesn't mean he didn't go to Rome at another point. (non-sequitur)
2. Gentiles does not equal Rome. Gentiles means those are are not Jews, which isn't limited to Rome.
3. It was James who stayed at Jerusalem with the Israelites. Peter was sent to the Jews outside of Israel who had or had not already converted to Christianity, because Christian Jews had also been persecuted and expelled by the Jews.

None of what you say proves Peter was not in Rome. There's absolutely no way to extract that from scripture. And even one could (which one couldn't), applying sola scriptura to establish historical facts is not a game I entertain, or should anyone, for that matter.

Right. Does it say "go and baptize unto all ISRAELITE nations"? Or are you twisting scriptures to your own benefit? Or are you inferring what the scriptures do not explicitly say? Hm. Pickle.

But this is an extension of your erroneous understanding of Gentile, it seems. It does not mean Rome, it means anyone who is not Jewish. After Jesus' mission in Israel was completed, the risen Jesus instructed the disciples to go to all nations, gentile or jew, and baptize them. This is Christianity 101. I've seen Judaizers before, but you're a special case.


I find it disturbing that you and your JAH brothers can get away with this butchering of Christian teachings and history whle making a claim to Christ.

You would go so far as to strip Jesus' greatest disciple, the one who recognized the Christ, the Son of the Living God, without revelation from flesh or blood, of his martyrdom, to validate your belief. There's some prince watching over this world who smiles at that.


More historical evidence:

Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans, 4
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.


Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.


Eusebius, Church History, Book II, 14
But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. Clad in divine armor like a noble commander of God, He carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.


Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, 14
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:


6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.


The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Ireneaus
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.



Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple 302unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul:


St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, Chapter 1
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
You're trying to argue that up is down and black is white, and it will NEVER work.

It absolutely does follow that Peter would not disobey Christ, as the RCC falsely claims he must have done, to allegedly become their first pope. There is zero scriptural evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, much less led a Roman church there, against Christ's Commandments.
It's not that Peter was the Bishop of Rome himself, but that the body of bishops succeeded the body of Apostles. Rome was "passed the keys of heaven" symbolically and it became the Church built on the Rock to shelter the flock from being led astray. This is symbolically represented in the building of the Saint-Peter basilica on the tomb of Peter. (symbolically!) Even if Peter never went to Rome, it would symbolically make no difference.

What's the evidence of Saint Peter's tomb in Jerusalem? (sorry, but I've already read like 57 pages of you guys. You'll have to start presenting the arguments and evidence yourself. I haven't asked you to read up on a book to catch up with my position either.)

It likewise absolutely follows that NON-JEWISH Rome was GENTILE.
That doesn't mean Gentile refers to Rome exclusively.

And for reference, the word "gentile" means "foreigner", i.e. a non-Israelite. So it applies to all those who were not descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel; both the 10-house "House of Israel" and also the 2-tribed "House of Judah" (Judah and Benjamin). Also, ALL Biblical prophecy about God's People is about the PEOPLE Israel, NOT some church or organized religion, nor even the land of Israel, currently occupied by counterfeit Jews (Ashkenazis).
In Catholic tradition, the Catholic Church became the New Israel since the old had rejected Christ's new covenant. Therefore the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed and the new Israel was born among the Gentiles. (This is Catholic tradition, this isn't my personal view.)

That's why the good news message (Gospel) had to go to Israel first, so that they could then distribute it all over the world, just as the British (Ephraim) and Anglo-Saxon American people (Manasseh) have done.
But the Israelites didn't distribute it all over the world. They killed their Messiah and many continued in their old ways of the priests and elders. They even beat Paul to near-death because they thought he was preaching not to follow the law of Moses.

Israel is the rebel. Even the Old Testament is ridden with prophets' condemnations toward this rebellious nation. It's Jerusalem that killed the prophets and killed the Christ.

Luke 13
33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Of course an upside down cross is a satanic symbol. Only Satan's "mother-church" (the great whore) could actually con people into believing such an obvious satanic symbol is somehow not a satanic symbol.
The Great Whore refers to the Wife who beds the wrong Husband, the Harlot who sleeps with the Devil, in other words, the church who worships the wrong Father. It refers to Jerusalem, not Rome.

Revelation 17 and 18 describes the Roman Catholic church in great detail. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 calls the pope the "son of the destroyer". Christ told His TRUE Followers to call NO MAN FATHER UPON THE EARTH (Matt. 23:8-10 - He told His Disciples not to be priests, either) for good reason: because we all have ONE FATHER, Who is in HEAVEN.
It specifically means to not be led astray by ones who are called "father" or "teacher" when it contradicts the Word of God the Father.

The Son of Perdition refers to the antichrist. If you think the Pope is the antichrist, man, you have another thing coming. The Pope doesn't exalt himself above all that is called God, or all that is worshiped, nor does he sit in the temple of God. The Vatican isn't a temple. The Pope is the Arch Diocese of the Church. Diocese means "administrator". These adminsitrators (or bishops) are the shepherds governing their proper congregation. The Bishop of Rome is the head shepherd administering the entire Catholic congregation. He is not in a place of worship, he's just being idolized like a rockstar by a part of the congregation. Within the Catholic Church, many conservatives believe the current Pope is disrespecting the office and it's the office that matters, not necessarily the person holding it.

So what does Roman Catholicism do? The exact opposite of course (Satan is Hebrew and means "the Opposer"). And then there's the pope, who has the supreme audacity to call himself "the Holy Father", a name reserved for God ALONE - John 17:11, i.e. he claims to be God Himself just as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 in its description of the pope.
This only works on those with anti-Catholic dispostions. It's pure slander and demonisation. It doesn't make sense either. Use of the Christian Cross originates with the proto-orthodox which became the standard symbol of Catholicism. Why would the Catholic Church do the exact opposite of itself? The Church introduced both symbols to begin with.

Apparently, the only people that don't know (or won't admit) the Roman Catholic church actually worships Lucifer at their highest levels are their unwitting(?) parishioners.
It's the same old videos and images we've been seeing for 10 years. Lucifer is Latin for "Lightbringer". The identification of Satan as Lucifer is meaningless and popularized by Alice Bailey. If you want to know the actual name of Satan, I think you'd be in for a suprise.

The Roman Catholic church will always defend its lies with its fabricated propaganda (more lies). That's all the so-called Gospel of Peter and the "Acts of Peter" are, and that's all they are: Roman propaganda, meant to bolster a made-up story about Simon Peter coming to Rome, to hide the fact it was Simon PATER, aka Simon the Sorcerer -- from Acts 8:9-24 - that actually went to Rome and founded the organization which eventually became the Roman Catholic church.
Look man, you can't have these double standards, on one hand say that Peter didn't go to Rome because scripture doesn't say so, but then say Simon Magus went to Rome even though scripture doesn't say so either. It's written that Simon Magus went to Rome in the Acts of Peter, whose alleged inauthenticity you used against Peter having gone to Rome. It's amazing how you can think that Simon Magus founded the RCC after all this, considering you're using the exact method to arrive at such conclusion (with less evidence) which you yourself have so vigorously rejected when it concerned Peter.

If Peter never went to Rome, then their entire house of cards comes tumbling down even if people aren't taking notice of the other overtly satanic things they do (e.g. raising and hiding p***phile priests, hoarding worldly wealth and treasures whilst people starve, etc. - see Matt. 6:24). So they have to hide the truth as much as they can, or it's game over for them and their lucrative business empire.
This is all mediatized baloney. The Catholic has no bigger p***philia problem than the average institution. On the contrary, it's on average less prevalent than the global average. And the p***philia problem in the Church has grown because of the rise of homosexuality in the Church over the past decades. The people within the Church know this.

The "hoarding of wealth" is another bullshit cliché. The Catholic Church doesn't "hoard wealth", they have received riches through voluntary donations over a long period of time (yeah sure, some was political, but so what) and they have acquired a lot of land because it's the Church that historically established stable communities throughout Europe and abroad during times of hardship with their local monasteries that provided for all basic necessities. They didn't let the poor starve, they were the refuge for the hungry and poor. They provided free health care and education for the needy. It's they who organized the schools and hospitals. You got your history backwards.

Not to worry though, it will be destroyed soon enough, exactly as Christ prophesied in His Revelation to John.
Yes, that's the Talmudo-Zionist conspiracy in a nutshell, to destroy the Church. Good to know where you stand on this, not that I'm surprised. But the prophecy concerns the actual Beast, the actual Whore of Babylon, friend, and it's not Rome.

May you have a good day as well and your prophecies go unfulfilled.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
God in Jesus+Christ (the human+Being) does not make Jesus (the temporary human) God.

human = human
Spirit = Spirit

The Spirit (i.e. Being, inside of the man who was named Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua) is Christ (and God Himself was, via His Spiritual connection, also in Jesus along with Christ).

God in Christ Jesus:

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us The Word of reconciliation.

Emmanuel "God with us":

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The human that Christ (God's Eldest Son Michael) used 2000 years ago (born of Mary's body - i.e., the "son of Mary") was called Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua which means "Saviour".

Saul (the human), Paul (the being) who was a born-again babe student of Christ Jesus (The Master), was not God either:

1 Corinthians 7:40 ...I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Humans (human animals) don't understand this (and they can never ever understand it, because humans can think only carnally - about human and material things only - because that is all that makes sense to a human).

The MOST important words in ALL Scripture are in John Chapter 3, and it explains what is written below.

King of kings' Bible - John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot SEE The Kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (human) and then is born (later) from above as his spirit-"Being" (his REAL self which is NOT human), he can NOT enter into The Kingdom of God (Who is
a Spirit-"Being").

3:6 That which is born of the flesh is human; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (a spirit-"Being") - (a human+Being).
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
http://JAHTruth.net/kofk-free/Bible

To a human animal, the things of the spirit are not even real, because it cannot comprehend them (John 3).

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man (the human) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they make no sense to him: neither can he understand [them], because they can ONLY be spiritually discerned [by the spirit - the Being part of the human+Being].

A human (someone who still believes that they are only human) cannot discern things of the Spirit (because they don't believe and therefore cant see that they are also spirit / a being).

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Jesus did not claim to be God and Paul did not claim to be God either, even when Paul said this:

1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.


Until a person (awakens to the truth and) begins to understand the difference between what spirit is and what flesh is, it cannot be understood, because humans (flesh) are not only extremely thick, but they (the human animal body/"self") can only see and comprehend material things and not spiritual things. The Law (Torah) is also spiritual, which means humans can't understand it, because it (and being un-"self"-ish) is completely ALIEN to humans (to be unselfish and think about being of service to others, instead of existing only to be of service to "self" - selfish) and it makes no sense whatsoever to a human (human nature is entirely focused on "self" - selfish).

The Different Effects Of Nature And Grace.
 
Last edited:

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,357
The city that sits on seven hills is ROME.
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/revelation-17-the-great-whore.6778/post-252536

The ROMAN Catholic church has their bishops dress in PURPLE and their cardinals dress in SCARLET coloured robes.

The ROMAN Catholic church kept the Bible (God's Word) FROM its children/followers/parishioners/unwitting(?) victims for over a thousand years, murdering anyone who attempted to share it with others after branding them as a "heretic". Their evil practices still continue today in the form of their "no sola scriptura" edict misinforming their children/followers that they are allegedly the only ones that can properly interpret the Scriptures, when they are, in fact, "the blind leading the blind" (Matt. 15:14).

The ROMAN Catholic church is the wealthiest business empire on the planet. They own more real estate, gold, silver, precious artifacts and paintings, etc. than any other organization on Earth, hoarding that wealth while people starve. Christ said it is IMPOSSIBLE to serve two masters, and thus IMPOSSIBLE to serve mammon/materialism and God (Matt. 6:24).

The ROMAN Catholic church has franchised their fraudulent salvation brokering business model into every country in the world, proliferating their satanic places of worship everywhere ("the overspreading of abominations"). How do we know their churches are satanic? Because the Bible says GOD DOES NOT DWELL IN THEM (Acts 7:48, 17:24) which is why Jesus+Christ truthfully warned that the ONLY people that go to church are hypocrites and heathens (Matt. 6:5-8).

The ROMAN Catholic church is the most openly idolatrous religion on the planet, and actually instruct their children not only to put up with these all of these idols but to pray to them. There is ONE Mediator BETWEEN God and men: Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). NOT tens or hundreds of thousands of priests which Christ COMMANDED us NEVER to be (Matt. 23:8-10). IF any of these people actually knew Who Father (God) really is, and Who Christ really is, they would be deathly afraid of what they're doing, ALL of which is in opposition of God and Christ, and ALL of which is leading anyone foolish enough to listen to them into The Fire.

The ROMAN Catholic church is the largest p***phile ring on the planet. This isn't to say they're the only ones doing this; only that they are the ring-leader, with the largest organization to do it and cover it up. And what do they do when one of their p***phile priests is exposed? They move them around to hide the fact proving yet again how evil and UNGODLY they are. Anyone still putting money into their coffers, is actually funding these CRIMES (and the legal representation to further perpetuate these crimes), and thus is an accomplice to them.

The ROMAN Catholic church is FILLED with homosexual priests, which now make up the majority of their incoming "celibate" priesthood. It should therefore come as no surprise they have so many pedophiles given the well-established link between homosexuality and p***philia. And the history of sexual abuse against its nuns is also well-known and well-documented.

The ROMAN Catholic church has LIED about Peter. Peter was NEVER in Rome, nor was he the first pope of the pagan ROMAN Catholic church, nor was Peter martyred on an inverted cross, nor was Peter buried in Rome, ALL of which are LIES. There is therefore no "apostolic succession" between Peter and the current popes because Peter was NEVER in Rome. The ROMAN Catholic church fabricated all of this fake history with its obvious fake documents and fake manuscripts to serve as the alleged "foundation" of their authority.

The ROMAN Catholic church has therefore LIED about the papacy. They have NO authority on Earth and they most certainly are not "Christ's emissaries" nor do they work for Christ in any shape, form, manner or way; they work for Lucifer/Satan/Iblis (2 Cor. 11:13-15), whom their leadership openly worships, and their practices openly serve.

The ROMAN Catholic church has LIED about their power to forgive sins. NO ONE but Christ and God Himself have the power to forgive anyone's sins, as these so-called priests should know IF they actually read and understood the Scriptures. It should be self-evident that the "Keys" of The Kingdom of heaven, which were given to ALL of the Disciples, were the TRUTHS that Christ taught, NOT the lies that the churches tell (including their fabricated pagan god they refer to as "the trinity").

The ROMAN Catholic church has LIED about God on every level (because they don't know Him). They created their satanic pagan 3=1 nonsensical trinity god from their Babylonian trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, by substituting Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their place, which is not only totally unscriptural, but breaks the First and Most Important COMMANDMENT. The ROMAN Catholic church has even been caught red-handed tampering with the Bible (e.g. 1 John 5:7-8 among many others) to promote their pagan deity, and attacking those who find and correct their unlawful additions and subtractions from Scripture. THERE IS NO TRINITY.

The ROMAN Catholic church has a military, counter-intelligence group known as the "Jesuits", which are actually crypto-counterfeit Jews, who control the Vatican finances, and report to the Jesuit General (the "black pope" - i.e. operating in the shadows/behind the scenes). As Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka pope Francis (and Peter the Roman - the last pope), is the first, openly Jesuit pope, he serves in both roles: as the visible leader of the RCC and as the Jesuit General.

The ROMAN Catholic church's military, counter-intelligence group known as the "Jesuits" (who are crypto, counterfeit Jews, i.e. Ashkenazis) has infiltrated the protestant denominations and run them from within, following the Lenin directive "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it". Of course Lenin himself was a counterfeit Jew (Ashkenazi).

The ROMANS also have their rules installed in virtually every courtroom in every country (along with their churches), in the form of "Roman law", upon which virtually every legal system around the world is based. That's the reason for all of the dead language (language of the dead) Latin terminology commonly used in the courts.

And it was the ROMANS who UNLAWFULLY (i.e. criminally) tried, sentenced and carried out the execution of Jesus 2000 years ago in a matter of hours, with no evidence of any kind presented against Him. Just as the ROMAN Catholic church has done with Christ's TRUE Followers throughout the ages, to protect their evil, lucrative business of stealing from people under false pretenses. How can anyone in their right-mind actually believe the same race of people who MURDERED Jesus are somehow the alleged authorities on salvation? Every single Roman Catholic pope, bishop, monsignor, priest or follower, who doesn't repent of their evil and leave the church, WILL BURN (Mal. 4, Matt. 21:37-41, 2 Thes. 2:3-12, Rev. 17, Rev. 18, Rev. 20:12-13).

This list could go on and on, but it should be lengthy enough to prompt anyone genuinely in search of the truth to research all of this in depth. It should also leave no reasonable doubt that NOTHING the pagan, Babylonian mystery religion known as ROMAN Catholicism can be trusted. It's all LIES, and those who continue believing them are doomed.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The remedy to all of this is simple: relentless pursuit and acceptance of the TRUTH. And the truth is this: we MUST return to keeping The Law that God gave us at Mt. Horeb in Sinai to protect us from all of this evil and to set and keep us free. Only the truth can set you free.

All others will burn. We have Father's Word on it (God's Word, NOT the pope).

Malachi 4
4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye and return to The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the "I AM" (Sura 43:61):
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 4:1 above for details of the curse).
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
TWH
3:65 The reason, or logic, behind God designing human+beings, is that the soul has to overcome and
control the animal, then use it to give love (spiritual and pure) and affection (human), and to always
do for the benefit of everyone. You have to overcome both the animal and spiritual SELFishness,
thereby making it twice as difficult to achieve, and so, consequently, making the end result twice as
effective.
3:66 This was the demonstration given by Christ, on the cross, when he controlled the animal that he
was temporarily using, which was made by Mary’s body, with God’s help, and then used it, for the
benefit of everyone on Earth, by taking upon himself the sins of the whole world. He controlled it
and used it, to the extent, that he “VOLUNTARILY” suffered the agony of the cross, giving up his
human-life, to show people the ULTIMATE example - destroying the self, with PERFECT
CONTROL, voluntarily, for the benefit of others. The PERFECT example of UNSELFISHNESS.
YOU must learn that degree of CONTROL.
3:67 Two thousand years and NO-ONE understands what the demonstration of the cross REALLY
means. The cross is not to be worn around your neck. It is to be worn inside. Hold out your arms,
horizontally, look in a mirror, and you will see your cross. Your cross is your selfishness, that you
must overcome and destroy. The cross of “SELF-sacrifice”, i.e. voluntary destruction of your own
SELFISHNESS, by the giving-up, of your own human, material interests, for the benefit of
everyone else’s spiritual well-being, thereby setting a good example, for others to follow, by your
DEEDS NOT WORDS.
3:68 “I am The Way, follow me,” which did not mean getting up off your backside, and following
him down the street. It means that Jesus is the way, that you all have to be, before you can follow
him back to heaven (home).
3:69 To do that, you must ask yourself, 24 hours a day, in every situation, what would Jesus do; say;
or think, in this situation? Then, before doing; saying or thinking anything, you must wait and listen
for, and to, the good voice, then go forwards, guided and protected, to victory.
3:70 Whilst in incredible agony, Jesus said, “Forgive them (you, all of you), because they do not
know what they are doing.” The people did not know what they were doing, because they were “out
of control”, and in Satan’s control, and that is the very reason why Jesus came, to show “The Way
(home)”, in the first-place. The people were “out of control”, because they could not control the
animals, that they were locked inside of and using, and had been deceived by Satan, who used their
religious arrogance against them.
3:71 God talks to the soul, and tells it how to be good. Satan talks to the human-animal-body, that
you are using, and tries to get it, to make you do what is wrong for your soul (real you). Your soul
(you) could easily control the body you are using, if it were not for Satan. However, because Satan is
more powerful than you are, you alone can never beat him. That is why you need God’s help, 24
hours a day, and direct-contact, in order to get it, so that you can do His Will.
3:72 Once you have God’s help, He controls Satan, leaving you free to control your animal and
spiritual selves, and things become a lot easier. As you progress, you become more and more
dependent on God, and become a “child of God” (adopted), until depending on Him becomes
second-nature, and, as He helps you, your faith in, and love for Him, continually increase, and, with
that, your inner-peace.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
God Incarnate in Jesus+Christ (the human+Being) does not make Jesus (the temporary human) God.

human = human
Spirit = Spirit

The Spirit (i.e. Being, inside of the man who was named Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua) is Christ (and God Himself was also in Jesus along with Christ).

God Incarnate in Christ Jesus:

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us The Word of reconciliation.

Emmanuel "God with us":

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The human that Christ (God's Eldest Son Michael) used 2000 years ago (born of Mary's body - i.e., the "son of Mary") was called Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua which means "Saviour".

Saul (the human), Paul (the being) who was a born-again babe student of Christ Jesus (The Master), was not God either:

1 Corinthians 7:40 ...I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Humans (human animals) don't understand this (and they can never ever understand it, because humans can think only carnally - about human and material things only - because that is all that makes sense to a human).

To a human animal, the things of the spirit are not even real, because it cannot comprehend them (John 3).

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man (the human) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they make no sense to him: neither can he understand [them], because they can ONLY be spiritually discerned [by the spirit - the Being part of the human+Being].

A human (someone who still believes that they are only human) cannot discern things of the Spirit (because they don't believe and therefore cant see that they are also spirit / a being).

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Jesus did not claim to be God and Paul did not claim to be God either, even when Paul said this:

1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.


Until a person (awakens to the truth and) begins to understand the difference between what spirit is and what flesh is, it cannot be understood, because humans (flesh) are not only extremely thick, but they (the human animal body/"self") can only see and comprehend material things and not spiritual things. The Law (Torah) is also spiritual, which means humans can't understand it, because it (and being un-"self"-ish) is completely ALIEN to humans (to be unselfish and think about being of service to others, instead of existing only to be of service to "self" - selfish) and it makes no sense whatsoever to a human (human nature is entirely focused on "self" - selfish).

The Different Effects Of Nature And Grace.
There's a subdivision in Christian teachings dividing humans along tripartite lines. The human soul can be carnal (hylic), those who surrender to the world of flesh, seeking material wealth and bodily gratification; animate (psychic), those torn between matter and spirit, capable of having faith and operating within the realm of justice; and spiritual (pneumatic), the god-breathed, those that transcend the realm of justice and are geared towards good and forgiveness.

Those belonging to the thought and those of the representation are called "the Right Ones" and "Psychic" and "the Fiery Ones" and "the Middle Ones." Those who belong to the arrogant thought and those of the likeness are called "the Left", "Hylic", "the Dark Ones," and "the Last." - Tripartite Tractate

The "Being" you refer to seems more akin to the angels, our twins in Heaven (our "husbands") with whom we've been separated before the separation with our divine origins (which you would call Home) and who we have to meet in the bridal chamber for reunification.

The Law of the Torah is not spiritual. It is partly (the Decalogue) an unveiling of sin to keep the "hylics" from sinning, and largely written by the hylics:

Now, as for the things which came forth from the <race> of the Hebrews, things which are written by the hylics who speak in the fashion of the Greeks, the powers of those who think about all of them, so to speak, the "right ones," the powers which move them all to think of words and a representation, they <brought> them, and they grasped so as to attain the truth and used the confused powers which act in them. - Tripartate Tractate
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,357
The Law of the Torah is not spiritual. It is partly (the Decalogue) an unveiling of sin to keep the "hylics" from sinning, and largely written by the hylics:

Now, as for the things which came forth from the <race> of the Hebrews, things which are written by the hylics who speak in the fashion of the Greeks, the powers of those who think about all of them, so to speak, the "right ones," the powers which move them all to think of words and a representation, they <brought> them, and they grasped so as to attain the truth and used the confused powers which act in them. - Tripartate Tractate
Why should anyone believe this man-made doctrine/tradition over the Commandments of God?

Matthew 15:1-14
15:1 Then came to Jesus lawyers and politicians, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the Tradition of the Elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud).
15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is FAR from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men (man-made laws/legislation).
15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the politicians were offended, after they heard this saying?

15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.
15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).

And why would God, Who is a SPIRIT, burn everyone to ashes who refuses to remember and return to His Law before Judgment Day if His Law wasn't spiritual?

Malachi 4
4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye and return to The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you EliJAH the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the "I AM" (Sura 43:61):
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

We will all be judged according to our works, whether they be good/Godly/LAWFUL or whether they be evil/sinful/UNLAWFUL, will we not?

Revelation 20:12-13
20:12 And I saw the "Dead", small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another Book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life: and the "Dead" were judged out of those things which were written in the Books, according to their works.
20:13 And the "sea" gave up the "Dead" which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their WORKS.

Wouldn't it be better to stop listening to the blind guides of organized religion, and instead start DOING what our Creator has COMMANDED us to do for our own benefit? God gave us The Law to protect and save us from evil and to set and keep us free so that we may LIVE.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the "I AM" thy God, to walk in His Ways, and to keep His Commandments and His Statutes and His Judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the "I AM" thy God shall bless thee in the land where thou goest to possess it.
30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, where thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
30:20 That thou mayest love the "I AM" thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Him: for He [is] thy Life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the "I AM" sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob/Israel, to give them.

The ONLY Way any of us have any hope of reaching the "promised land" (heaven) is to DO what Father (God) has COMMANDED us to do. He loves us and wants the best for us, which is why He gave us His Perfect Law, so that we can all learn how to play well with each other.

Does anyone really think Father (Who is God) will allow any of us to come home, to heaven, if we still think we know better than Him what is right and wrong?

When will we ever learn?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
There's a subdivision in Christian teachings dividing humans along tripartite lines. The human soul can be carnal (hylic), those who surrender to the world of flesh, seeking material wealth and bodily gratification; animate (psychic), those torn between matter and spirit, capable of having faith and operating within the realm of justice; and spiritual (pneumatic), the god-breathed, those that transcend the realm of justice and are geared towards good and forgiveness.

Those belonging to the thought and those of the representation are called "the Right Ones" and "Psychic" and "the Fiery Ones" and "the Middle Ones." Those who belong to the arrogant thought and those of the likeness are called "the Left", "Hylic", "the Dark Ones," and "the Last." - Tripartite Tractate

The "Being" you refer to seems more akin to the angels, our twins in Heaven (our "husbands") with whom we've been separated before the separation with our divine origins (which you would call Home) and who we have to meet in the bridal chamber for reunification.

The Law of the Torah is not spiritual. It is partly (the Decalogue) an unveiling of sin to keep the "hylics" from sinning, and largely written by the hylics:

Now, as for the things which came forth from the <race> of the Hebrews, things which are written by the hylics who speak in the fashion of the Greeks, the powers of those who think about all of them, so to speak, the "right ones," the powers which move them all to think of words and a representation, they <brought> them, and they grasped so as to attain the truth and used the confused powers which act in them. - Tripartate Tractate
That seems to be describing three possible conditions; in that it can be either completely the "human condition" (completely unaware of spirit and existing as no more than a base animal; seeking only to gratify it's base animal instincts and not caring about others, unless they can be of use to add to it's own comfort or welfare - 100% selfish), to an intermediate state that is somewhere in the middle (an awareness that spirit exists but still confused and not sure as to who/what one is, the human-animal body, or the spiritual-being, and flip-flopping in between the two states, therefore confused and also confusing) to the state of "pure"/really "being" (awakened and aware of not being "the human" but that you are a spirit-being locked inside of the human-animal body and then through a continual conscious effort, acting accordingly and overcoming the human condition, daily (crucifying the "self" and it's selfish nature daily, until it is completely dead).

But, there are really just two natures that can be seen in the above; the human-animal nature (animal - with selfish animal instinct, always looking out for "number one" i.e. the "self"; because to the human (carnal) mind, nothing else of any real value or importance exists, in the environment or in other people, unless it exists for the sole purpose of being of use to gratify all of "it's" selfish desires - that of the human-animal) and the spiritual nature (spirit-being or soul-nature, which, when SANE (SANITY comes from being at-one with God which can only come through having personal direct-contact with God on a constant ongoing basis), is unselfish and thinks of the welfare of others and what it can do for other beings, as God guides, rather than just thinking of it's own "self").

The Torah is spiritual, it teaches unselfishness and doing what is best for all concerned, instead of just for one's own self. It requires the spiritual insight that is gained through the following and living out of Christ's Teachings (i.e. God's Teachings, that He sent and it came through/by His Son in the appearance of Jesus+Christ) to be able to see it (the spiritual teaching) through "the veil".

2 Corinthians
3:13 And not as Moses, [which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Covenant (Testament); which [veil] (the veil not The Covenant - Rev. 15:3) is done away in Christ.
3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses (the Torah) is read, the veil is upon their heart.
3:16 Nevertheless when it (the Torah) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
@Artful Revealer If I might offer a suggestion (of what has worked for me). Presumably, you have read the Torah (first 5 Books of the Old Testament/Covenant before - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)?

If they seem like a struggle, here is something (only a suggestion, if) you may wish to test this approach, as an experiment.

If you struggle with the Torah, then go and re-read the New Covenant/Testament. The New Testament does not really take that long to read. Read it as much as you feel you wish, until you start to feel like you should read something else, (or, you may even feel like it's time to read the Old Covenant again) but then, once you have freshened up on the NT, now go back to reading the Torah. And while you read it, keep the NT in mind, don't forget about it and what happened in it.

I'm suggesting this since it is an approach that has worked at a particular time for me personally.

It's all in the Gospels. Christ's Teachings (God's Teachings that He gave to the world in/through His Son Jesus+Christ) is what takes "the veil" away to be able to see the spiritual meaning in the Torah.

The Levitical priesthood was also abolished by God in the NT (as God prophesied He was going to do, in Exek. 34) so this is essential to keep in mind as well.

"When THE "High-Priest of all time" was crucified by the jewish priests; lawyers and politicians, for challenging their authority, and the "Temple Veil" to the "Holy of Holies" was destroyed, this was to show the world that, from that moment on, the priest-hood was abolished FOR EVER, except for Christ Himself." - http://JAHTruth.net/passnot.htm

The ceremonial part of The Law (animal sacrifices & priesthood) have also been abolished. These were only there to serve as a schoolteacher/schoolmaster to bring people to Christ.

"Therefore the parts of The Old Covenant that relate to the priesthood, churches and the animal sacrifices, for redemption from sin, are now OBSOLETE." http://JAHTruth.net/nsong.htm#Lamb
 
Last edited:

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,357
@A Freeman

Did Jesus break the law of the Torah, yes or no?
How could "The Law made flesh" break The Law (Torah is Hebrew and means "The Law" in English). Did Christ do harm to anyone?

Matthew 5:46-47
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

What are your thoughts on the matter please?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
@Artful Revealer If I might offer a suggestion (of what has worked for me). Presumably, you have read the Torah (first 5 Books of the Old Testament/Covenant before - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)?

If they seem like a struggle, here is something (only a suggestion, if) you may wish to test this approach, as an experiment.

If you struggle with the Torah, then go and re-read the New Covenant/Testament. The New Testament does not really take that long to read. Read it as much as you feel you wish, until you start to feel like you should read something else, (or, you may even feel like it's time to read the Old Covenant again) but then, once you have freshened up on the NT, now go back to reading the Torah. And while you read it, keep the NT in mind, don't forget about it and what happened in it.

I'm suggesting this since it is an approach that has worked at a particular time for me personally.

It's all in the Gospels. Christ's Teachings (God's Teachings that He gave to the world in/through His Son Jesus+Christ) is what takes "the veil" away to be able to see the spiritual meaning in the Torah.

The Levitical priesthood was also abolished by God in the NT (as God prophesied He was going to do, in Exek. 34) so this is essential to keep in mind as well.

"When THE "High-Priest of all time" was crucified by the jewish priests; lawyers and politicians, for challenging their authority, and the "Temple Veil" to the "Holy of Holies" was destroyed, this was to show the world that, from that moment on, the priest-hood was abolished FOR EVER, except for Christ Himself." - http://JAHTruth.net/passnot.htm

The ceremonial part of The Law (animal sacrifices & priesthood) have also been abolished. These were only there to serve as a schoolteacher/schoolmaster to bring people to Christ.

"Therefore the parts of The Old Covenant that relate to the priesthood, churches and the animal sacrifices, for redemption from sin, are now OBSOLETE." http://JAHTruth.net/nsong.htm#Lamb
You know what, I might take you up on that offer. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels from front to back. Can I make you a counter offer?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
You know what, I might take you up on that offer. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels from front to back. Can I make you a counter offer?
As long as it's not on any condition, then yes of course (as was mine was to you, being offered only as a suggestion, if that suggestion happened to appeal to you). I've currently actually been hoping to be able to spend some more time catching up on reading more and commenting less.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
As long as it's not on any condition, then yes of course (as was mine was to you, being offered only as a suggestion, if that suggestion happened to appeal to you). I've currently actually been hoping to be able to spend some more time catching up on reading more and commenting less.
I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.

You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,574
How could "The Law made flesh" break The Law (Torah is Hebrew and means "The Law" in English). Did Christ do harm to anyone?

Matthew 5:46-47
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

What are your thoughts on the matter please?
Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I ask.

Feel like you're interpolating something into the Logos which doesn't belong. But let's save that for some other time.

I'd like to know what you make of the following scripture:

John 5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

King of king's version: John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Considering that according to Mosaic Law, deliberately breaking the sabbath is a capital offense (Ex 3:15), which is what Jesus did in spite of the warnings of the Pharisees, how would you reconcile the incarnation of the Law with not being able to break the Law?

Exodus 3
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
 
Top