Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 3:03:07 GMT -5
New Testament Greek to Hebrew Dictionary by Jeff Benner
Grk#:5043 / tek-non (noun): Child Freq:&99 Heb#:1121 בן / ben (noun): Son—A male offspring. This can be the son or a later male descendant of the father. One who continues the family line.
Please detail why you discount the NT references to "bane elohiym" when Jeff Benner wouldn't?
L.A. Marzulli says this is only for Job accounts and Gen 6:4 account, this suggests one can take a word in the Bible and give it different meanings based on context. Thus he ignores the NT contexts.
Dave:"Where is my proof – all I have are the words of the disciples John, James, Peter, Phillip, Thomas, and the Apostille Paul – and the Books of Enoch and Jubilees – and the works of Solomon
OK, I will accept this for now.
Question: It implies that the archon managed to do it - once they were earth-bound . They failed at first – but altered their form to be successful
How can a creature change sexually to a different form?
Show me the Gnostic writings that explain this...
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2019 8:04:35 GMT -5
New Testament Greek to Hebrew Dictionary by Jeff Benner Grk#:5043 / tek-non (noun): Child Freq:&99 Heb#:1121 בן / ben (noun): Son—A male offspring. This can be the son or a later male descendant of the father. One who continues the family line. Please detail why you discount the NT references to "bane elohiym" when Jeff Benner wouldn't? 6 agl verses = children of the one true GodJoh 1:12 … children of God … (OJB) yeladim haElohim – children of THE God (TLV) children of God Rom 8:14 (OJB) bnei HaElohim. – sons of THE God (TLV) sons of God. Rom 8:19 … sons of God. (OJB) bnei HaElohim. – sons of THE God (TLV) sons of God Php 2:15 … children of God … (OJB) bnei haElohim – sons of THE God (TLV) children of God 1Jn 3:1 … children of God … (OJB) yeladim of Elohim sons of THE God (TLV) God’s children 1Jn 3:2 … children of God, … (OJB) yeladim of Elohim – sons of God (TLV) God’s children Easy answerahl - sons (male only) of the gods (plural) Agl – children (male and female – inclusive) of the One True God Question #1 - Who is the Beast of Revelation 20:10 Question #2 – who is the satan of Revelation 20:10 And I’ll add – who is the false prophet of Revelation 20:10 And your answer is?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2019 10:24:58 GMT -5
Question: It implies that the archon managed to do it - once they were earth-bound . They failed at first – but altered their form to be successful How can a creature change sexually to a different form? Show me the Gnostic writings that explain this... The Apocryphon of John - The Nag Hammadi Library… he (the chief archon) had brought darkness upon the whole earth.
"And he made a plan with his powers. He sent his angels to the daughters of men, that they might take some of them for themselves and raise offspring for their enjoyment. And at first they did not succeed. When they had no success, they gathered together again and they made a plan together. They created a counterfeit spirit, who resembles the Spirit who had descended, so as to pollute the souls through it. And the angels changed themselves in their likeness into the likeness of their mates (the daughters of men), filling them with the spirit of darkness, which they had mixed for them, and with evil. They brought gold and silver and a gift and copper and iron and metal and all kinds of things. And they steered the people who had followed them into great troubles, by leading them astray with many deceptions. They (the people) became old without having enjoyment. They died, not having found truth and without knowing the God of truth.messengers / angels (of the chief archon) = bad guys = archon These archon changed themselves into the forms of men to mate WHAT DOES THIS MEAN#1- Shapeshifting – is a reoccurring theme all over the stories of the archon What is shapeshifting? If I was simple, I would think –‘how can a biological form morph into another biological form?’ Or – ‘how can a spirit form (bane elohiym) change into a biological form?’ Gnostic answer – they don’t – it is your perception they trick Just like hypnosis – tell someone under hypnosis an onion is an apple, when awake they will eat it and like it. David Ike saw a Reptilian that morphed into a man – in David Ikes MIND They – the archon – can make you see whatever they want They plant the image into your mind Dancing – children sized – bunnies hop into the forest – luring human children to follow them into UFO abducting aliens The satan can appear as an angel of LIGHT What was once seen as demons and ‘other gods’ are now seen as UFO aliens SAME guys – just a different perception #2- SEX – between bane elohiym, spirit beings, and mortal man If I was simple, I would think of physical contact – intercourse Yet – we have another example of a Spirit Fathering the Son of Man Did Mary have sexual intercourse? – NO Therefore – why must spirit beings, bane elohiym, (archon – bad guy angels) have sexual intercourse to father the Nephilim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 13:16:27 GMT -5
Greetings Dave, you make three sections of comments
(1)------------
Bereshis 6:4 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) Gen 6:4 from OJB HaNefilim were on ha’aretz in those yamim; and also after that, when the bnei HaElohim came in unto the banot HaAdam, and they bore children to them, the same became gibborim which were of old, men of renown.
But I notice "ben-yud hey-elohiym", I see the OJB is a good translation of the Hebrew here, comparing with Hebrew Bible Hub.
In Job 38:7 it only says "ben-yud elohiym" in Hebrew Bible Hub. OJB Job 38: 7 When the kokhvei boker sang together, and all the Bnei Elohim shouted for joy?
The OJB agrees?
OJB Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Ruach HaElohim, they are bnei HaElohim.
OJB Gen 6:2 That the bnei HaElohim saw the banot HaAdam that they were tovot; and they took them nashim of all which they chose. OJB Job 1:6 Now there was a yom when the Bnei HaElohim came to present themselves before Hashem, and Hasatan came also among them.
The OJB translates even the prefix along with root Hebrew nicely, it seems? I checked using Bible Hub.
Thus Bnei Elohim is different to bnei HaElohim.
Ben-yud hey-elohiym must refer to followers of GOD , on earth, as humans.
In Job these Ben-yud hey-elohiym must be unfallen Beings from other worlds, as they are prince of. The Hasatan is prince of earth, then.
The Bnei Elohim who shout for joy during creation of earth, is differently written in Hebrew, meaning ?? don't know?
Thus the reference Ben-yud hey-elohiym must refer to followers of GOD , on earth, as humans.
(2)------------
Question #1 - Who is the Beast of Revelation 20:10 Question #2 – who is the satan of Revelation 20:10
The Greek (/Hebrew) has three listed authorities:
devil <diabolos> :simile of Satan as head of his army of fallen angels beast <therion> : simile of human heads and their armies of evil men the false prophet <pseudoprophetes> : simile of salvation powers pretending to be Jesus, true disciples with true doctrine, but actually leads many human astray, deceiving them.
All of these words are functions or actions, not named Beings per se'.
Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Notice powers of false prophet, great miracles happen...on video even..
Re 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Notice powers of human authorities who arise from the abyss, killing humans.
Mt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him(the devil of Rev 20:10), Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Notice power of Hasatan, the chief fallen angel, who opposes Jesus on earth.
(3)-----------------
Nice explanation using Gnostic writings... well researched...
But I don't support these ideas, sorry.
Dave: "Just like hypnosis – tell someone under hypnosis an onion is an apple, when awake they will eat it and like it.
Hence the reason we should avoid Gnostic writings perhaps?
Have you considered where the Gnostic writings came from?
I add these comments written by an SDA person who researched in Simon, the Lord made me stumbled upon his writings by providence?
"The corruption of the church by pagan mystery religions and false religious system began very early some say even at the time with Pentecost in 31 A.D. In Pauls epistles, he says that "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (II Thess. 2:7 cra). Paul wrote this in 50 or 51 AD The plot to supplant the Truth had already begun. In the later epistles of Paul and in those of the other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable momentum. So were did these mystery religions come from and how did they find their way into the early church. Well we dont have to go far to find one of the perpetrators of these false beliefs that crept into the church. The book of Acts was written by Luke about 62 AD some 31 years after the True Church began. Acts goes over events which affected the church and especially tells us about the beginnings of matters relating to Church history. Now read the incident recorded by Luke, of the first encounter of the Apostles with Simon the Magus:
Acts 8:5-28 King James Version (KJV) 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city. 9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
Why does Luke write about Simon, the great one? This would have been a false prophet in Lukes day? with great miracles of power?
The reason Luke describes the intentions of this man so thoroughly is the profound effect this man, and his followers, had on Gods Church. Actually, this man by 62 AD, (when Luke composed the book of Acts) had caused the so much trouble and confusion that Luke had to show the people that he was not, as he claimed to be, a part of the Christian Church.
All scholars realize that Luke tells about Simon Magus beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to the Church.
In this regard, notice the comment of Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "It seems beyond question that Luke knew the reputation which Simon acquired, and that he regarded the subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of what occurred in the beginning of his connection with the Christians."
If we assume that Luke recorded this encounter of the Apostles with Simon Magus simply to show that "simony" was wrong, we miss the point completely. There is a score of places in other parts of the Bible to show the error of buying ecclesiastical gifts. Lets take a look closer look at Simon the Sorcerer or Magician, in Latin Simon Magnus. He was a Samaritan magus or follower of Zoroaster, magi who claimed the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold and a convert to Christianity.
Notice the points Luke gives us. Simon was a Samaritan, and used unknown powers to do miracles and wonders (Verse 9) "which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one".
The whole population of Samaria gave heed to him (Verse 10) "To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God." He was looked on as the greatest prophet in Samaria. The Samaritans saw him as "the Great One" -- a god. Luke is also careful to inform us that Simon had become firmly established in Samaria as "the Great One" and had practiced his powers " for a long time" (Verse 11) " And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries"..
Luke wants us to understand that he nominally became a Christian ("Simon himself believed") and was baptized -- that is, he physically, outwardly "entered" the Christian Church (Verse 13).
Simon even recognized that Christs power was greater than his but wanted to be associated with that great name (Verse 13).
Simon, seeing the potential of the Christian religion waited until the authorities, Peter and John, came to Samaria and then offered to pay them money to get the power the apostles had.(Verses 18-21). It appears that after being cast out by the Apostles he came to Rome where he became influential and well known. He was a danger and if you read between the lines, Luke was clearly showing that Simon was not truly converted or a part of God's Church, even though in Rome, many people were being fooled that Simon was truly a Christian. Instead he begun a false religion which history says formed into Gnosticism, which was from ancient religious ideas which spread in the first century among Jewish and early Christian groups.. Next lets take a look at what it did to destroy the truth and faith among the early believers.
So here is a good explanation, "...Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.
Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus "proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together of religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p. 244).
Simon can be classified among the major group of so-called Christians (and Simon called himself such), called by Harnack the: "decidedly anti-Jewish groups . . . . They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament and perceived the impossibility of saving it [that is, the Old Testament] for the Christian UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather connected this [universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON and SYRIA" (VoI. 1, p. 246).
With this background, we can understand why Peter so strongly rebuked Simon for his Babylonian ideas. Peter prophesied that this was the man who was to be the "gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity" to the True Church. Simon s attitude was corrupt in the extreme!
The Bible shows he had been working through demons. And yet, he finally called himself a "Christian." Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)....." While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:
It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God. He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).
His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen.
So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins, and the sources that it came from. It was to confuse and mislead many which we see even to this day......
So ends his comments. While I have enjoyed your comments and selections of Gnostic materials, some show truth, some show error, overall it is as confusing as Hebrew can be. I did not know about Simon changing the influence of the early Christian church, is this historical account true?
What can you tell me about Simon and his role in Gnosticism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 13:35:35 GMT -5
www.hope-of-israel.org/magus.html
This website explains many details about Simon.
And as in all mystical religions, so here too, HOLY RITES and FORMULAS, ACTS OF INITIATION AND CONSECRATION, all those things which we call SACRAMENTS, play a very prominent part. The Gnostic religion is full of such sacraments. Indeed, sacred formulas, NAMES AND SYMBOLS are of the highest importance among the Gnostic sects (1943 edition. Vol. 10, p. 453).
Is this true of your Gnostic understanding? What sacraments?
The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was characteristic of Gnosticism, and which was especially obvious in the Simonian system, is readily explicable in the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with Christian teaching without becoming a genuine member" ( Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome, Bailey, p 496.)
"When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.) [actually, 42 A.D.], and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription ‘Simoni deo Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2019 18:56:41 GMT -5
Greetings Dave, you make three sections of comments (1)------------ Bereshis 6:4 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) How many posts did you make explaining to me that you only use the Roman approved Textus Receptus – King James Version. Now you go outside of it to make points – giggle So – you are saying that Rev 20:10 satan was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also is satan Sure – I believe that I must have told you 100 times – Gnostic Christianity comes from the Nag Hammadi Texts which were found in 1945 written by the same authors as the agl You spend too much time making stuff up Simon Magnus – 150AD was a sorcerer and tried to buy an Apostleship (Called a Gnostic by Rome) Nag Hammadi Text – 1945 – called Gnostic by Rome OF COUSE these two separate things are 100% related through 1800 years OK – I’ll play your game Joseph Smith 1832, Miller 1833, White 1860 – all call themselves Christian Therefore you believe in the Other Testament of Jesus Christ and Jesus and satan are twin brothers Is this why you believe your satan is a god? Do you give thanks to the angel Mormo? And you believe that demonic souls are born into black babies only Why do you believe all this crap? Should I post a link to a Joseph Smith Video - he is a Christian like you He persoanlly performed 11 of the 17 recorded miricles of the LDS church
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 1:22:08 GMT -5
Dave: "Now you go outside of it to make points – giggleActually I come to see the OJB is a good Hebrew translation, even showing the prefix and suffix in Hebrew words... you use it, so I have come to like it... is this a problem? You didn't comment on my finding with the OJB? Dave: "So – you are saying that Rev 20:10 satan was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also is satanWhen does Rev 20:10 occur in time? The whole of Rev 19 is about the Second Coming of Jesus, the wedding feast for the saints, and the end of the beast and Satan into the lake of fire. So Rev 20 concerns the details in Rev 19, some more. But Rev 20 is way into the future, just after the Second Coming of Jesus. Why do you have a problem with the verse? Dave:" You spend too much time making stuff upSimon Magnus – 150AD was a sorcerer and tried to buy an Apostleship (Called a Gnostic by Rome) Nag Hammadi Text – 1945 – called Gnostic by Rome OF COUSE these two separate things are 100% related through 1800 years Sorry if I upset you. I am not playing games, only asking where some of the Greek influences in the Gnostic writings came from? Simon Magnus – 150AD ? Where did you get that idea? If Peter spoke to Simon in person, how can Peter be over 150 years old? Your facts are wrong. Simon Magnus was around in Peter's time. Read the passage in Luke. And do some historical research in Simon Magnus. Dave: "Joseph Smith 1832, Miller 1833, White 1860 – all call themselves Christian Therefore you believe in the Other Testament of Jesus Christ and Jesus and satan are twin brothers Is this why you believe your satan is a god? Do you give thanks to the angel Mormo? And you believe that demonic souls are born into black babies only
Why do you believe all this crap?I don't. But you do because you write about it. I can't write about it, because I never heard of this stuff before, never heard of Gnostic stuff before, never read about Simon Magnus before. I am trying to help you. Maybe the reason why Gnostic writings as a whole seem Greek mystic and wrong with Hebrew sometimes, is because it was set up that way by false prophets, such as Simon Magnus? It's just a suggestion? Have you studied into this? Dave: " Should I post a link to a Joseph Smith Video - he is a Christian like you He personally performed 11 of the 17 recorded miracles of the LDS churchDevil can do miracles too. You thought it wrong when I suggest Devil has churches. What is a false prophet? Someone who mixes Pagan with Christian, in the guise of salvation. They believe in Jesus Christ in public but follow a different messiah in private. False prophets deceive, and they have churches all right. What was Simon Magnus? A Great One (Acts 8:9) than he was baptised Christian, did he give up his Great One Pagan magic ? no Ac 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,This verse suggest Simon did not fully give up his old religion. Ac 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.This is the only clue as to the intent of Simon. Do you have any idea what this Jewish idiom might mean? www.hope-of-israel.org/magus.html This website explains many details about Simon. I present this website to help you. We need to consider why there is so much mystic stuff in Gnostic writings, and where Gnostic writings came from. Both Simon Magnus and Simon Fisherman, were similar ages, and developed Christian churches, one became true, the other false. It's a story we should investigate. Nag Hammadi Text – 1945 – called Gnostic by RomeOK, so what was this writings called way back in AD 40 ? when Simon Magnus and Simon Fisherman was around? What did Simon Magnus do to the true Church writings? We should investigate that... Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 19, 2019 2:42:52 GMT -5
Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is Let me use your word – ridicules typo – meant 50AD Lets read some Book of Morman and study Joseph Smith – he is a Christian Prophet – he saw God in person I will post a link to Mormon information if it will help you with your Christianity YES WE SHOULDThe Gnostic Library Society The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient books (called "codices") containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary "Gnostic Gospels" – texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" – scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth. The discovery and translation of the Nag Hammadi library, initially completed in the 1970's, From the INTRODUCTION of my copyThe Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of religious texts that vary widely from each other as to when, where, and by whom they were written. Even the points of view diverge to such an extent that the text are not to be thought of as coming from one group or movement. Yet these diversified materials must have had something in common that caused them to be chosen by those who collected them. … one of them, The Gospel of Thomas, begins with a word to the wise: “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.” Thus the texts can be read at two levels: what the original author may have intended to communicate and what the texts may subsequently have been taken to communicate. Those who collected this library were Christians, and many of the essays were originally composed by Christian authors. In a sense this should not be surprising, since primitive Christianity itself was a radical movement.the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" – Rome’s struggle to be dominate Rome vrs Gnostics – (Wiki) The Index librorum prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") was a list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (a former Dicastery of the Roman Curia), and Catholics were forbidden to read them without permission It was first started in 180AD by Irenaeus of Lyon France Read more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/thread/418/nag-hammadi-text#ixzz68XJZ6HgTMore importantly what did St Jerome and Calvin do with the agl scripture We should investigate that – or is perfect Rome off limits to you
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 19, 2019 12:30:43 GMT -5
Nag Hammadi Text – 1945 – called Gnostic by RomeOK, so what was this writings called way back in AD 40 ? when Simon Magnus and Simon Fisherman was around? What did Simon Magnus do to the true Church writings? We should investigate that... YES WE SHOULD!From my book Pg 70 (I quote James 2:14 – 26 ) … If what James says, about an individual man is true, then wouldn’t the same analogy also be true for a group of men, a movement by men, a Church governed by men, or even an entire religion?
So, what have been the works, deeds, and consequences of Roman leadership within the Christian faith? First, from the position of arrogance comes the notion that there was only a single, obvious, and authentic version of Christianity to which all Pg 71 true believers must follow. Rome was only too happy to establish itself as guardian of the canon and protector of the faith.
Yet, the period of the early church was actually one of the most Confused and contested in Christian history. Socrates' post-Nicene history of Christianity presents a horrifying mixture of violence, ambition, political intrigue, and, except for a few shining examples, had little to do with following Christ.
The idea of a single Christian truth was proving to be elusive. Christians from Antioch to Rome to Ephesus were proving every day, it simply didn’t exist. Christianity did not fall, fully formed and nicely packaged, from the sky and the idea of Christian unity remains elusive to this very day. Unity had to be invented, forged, and hammered out on the anvil of heresy.2
Before the Emperor Constantine endorsed Christianity different Christian leaders and their followers came under Rome’s scrutiny. As Jonathan Wright says, in his book about heretics, “It was an age of persecution: not quite so swingeing and not quite as ceaseless as is often imagined, but an age of persecution nonetheless. It was clear that Rome detested Christianity and, while it couldn’t really help the fact, this was largely Christianity’s own fault. If you erect a religion that characterizes all other faiths as false, and if some of your brethren refuse to make any compromises with the religious world around them, you are behaving very bravely. You can also expect baleful consequences.”3
We forget that Rome’s adoption of the Christian faith spelled the end for pagan religions within the Empire. In 386 AD, a man named Libanius, who was devastated by the post-Nicaean systematic destruction of the old faiths, pleaded with the emperor to rein in the excesses of Christian officials. They “hasten to attack the temples with sticks and stones and bars of iron, and in some cases, disdaining these, with hands and feet. Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs, demolition of Pg 72 walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priest must either keep quite or die. After demolishing one, they scurry to another, and to a third, and trophy is piled on trophy.”4
Many would come to resent this new Roman Christian world: a place in which coercion was acceptable and in which religious faith and political power were so closely intertwined. Coercion in any form is always counterproductive: it produces a congregation of hypocrites who pretended to believe in the prevailing religion in order to avoid ostracism or punishment. As such, the state could never become directly involved in the policing of belief because the focus of a true religion is the inward full persuasion (of the mind). The care of souls cannot be given to the civil magistrate because his power consist only in a corporeal force; but salvation through religion consist in the inward conversion of the mind.5 The first 300 years of Christianity looked nothing like Roman Christendom THE FIRST CHRISTIANS were small pockets of believers spread all around the known worldThomas went to India Mathew went to Africa Mark went to Egypt Paul went all around the Roman Empire None of these groups had Erasmus’s Texus Receptus – or anything like itDifferent groups had a different collection of various texts Did the Egyptian group have Paul’s letter to the Greek churches? – NO Did the Greek churches have an Egyptian Gospel - No The Power of the Roman Empire empowered Roman Christendom to dominate the edit and leadership of the UNIFIED Christian church under Roman controlWhat Happened to the FIRST CHRISTIANS? – Rome killed them all What happened to the Gnostics – Rome killed them all that they could A rebirth of Gnostic Christianity arose in Southern France in the 12th Century, to their neighbors they were called ‘The Goodmen’ (Good Christian people) – Rome Killed them all Martin Luther opened the agl to the public and what was Rome’s response? – Kill them all Question – Who were the closest disciples to Jesus? James, John, and Peter Who saw Christ Transfigured – James, John, and Peter Whom did Jesus say He would build His Church? = Peter The Nag Hammadi Text – found where – Egypt – an Egyptian group of FIRST CHRISTIANS Written by whom? James, John, and Peter We know Christ appeared to James, John, and Peter (and all the disciples) We know from the agl – Christ spoke privately to James - 1 Corinthians 15:7 We know from the Nag Hammadi the private conversations between Christ and John, Peter, Phillip Why does Rome hate Gnosticism so much Gnostics Christians are focused upon the indwelling of the HS – the Pentecost – Spiritual Baptism Gnostics do not need ‘church’ – a 501C3 tax exempt business with paid leadership to teach them how to think. Gnostics seek guidance only from the Spirit – everything else is man-made crap
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 13:29:01 GMT -5
Your book writes well, and researched well:
Jonathan Wright says, in his book about heretics, “It was an age of persecution: not quite so swingeing and not quite as ceaseless as is often imagined, but an age of persecution nonetheless. It was clear that Rome detested Christianity and, while it couldn’t really help the fact, this was largely Christianity’s own fault. If you erect a religion that characterizes all other faiths as false, and if some of your brethren refuse to make any compromises with the religious world around them, you are behaving very bravely. You can also expect baleful consequences.”3
Why did Rome edit out true Christians? Perhaps they exposed Simon Magnus, and followed Simon Peter instead? Reading so far, I get the impression Simon Magnus was the first pope of Rome, the pagan-Christian theology Rome adopted, but they pretend to follow Simon Peter. So it's no wonder Rome hates Simon Peter, and anything Christian to do with Simon Peter. Rome adopted the Babylonian, Greek and Roman ideas into Christianity blending it all in, making money out of religion.
That's what Simon Magnus simony was about making money out of religion. Isn't this true of the richest church today?
Have a look at this website: And I quote my snippets:
gnosis.org/welcome.html
gnosis.org/simon.magus.bio.html
THE GNOSIS ARCHIVE Gnostic Studies on the Web | GNOSIS ARCHIVE | GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY |
Newsgroups: pet@netcom.com (Paul Trejo) Subject: Re: Simon Magus Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 19:19:21 GMT I.E.Schwann (schwann@aztec.co.za) wrote:
: Many years ago in the time of Christ, lived an enigma by the name of : Simon Magus..... : He was accompanied by a lady of great beauty, i think Helena was her name... : he was also knicknamed "the standing one" for obvious reasons... : He was one of the first gnostics, though he had a reputation as a : sourcerer too. : He is also often confused with other "Simons" of the age, of which there : were a few. : Does anyone know the full story? :
Respect, : Schwann
Dear Schwann, The Christian bishop Irenaeus, about 180 AD, wrote one of the earliest Christian refutations of Gnosis, entitled, ADVERSUS HAERESES. He begins saying that the history of Gnosticism is the key to understanding Gnosticism. His view of the history of Gnosticism begins with Simon Magus, the person of whom you ask.
Simon was a famous Magician who lived during the reign of Claudius Caesar (of "I, CLAUDIUS"), which places him at the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul. The book of ACTS refers to him in Chapter Eight.
Simon taught that he was the Son of God, destined to appear among the Jews. He claimed he would descend in Samaria as the Father, and among the other nations as the Holy Ghost. He said he was one with the Father.
He was always accompanied by his consort Helen, a converted prostitute from Tyre (as Bishop Irenaeus tells it). Simon claimed she was his first-born creation from his holy mind, the Mother of all. Helen first gave Father Simon the idea to create angels. She brought Simon's will to the lower planes of material existence, and made the world.
She was held captive by the lower forces, who refused to let her leave. They had no knowledge of Simon, and enclosed her in a female human body, and she re-incarnated as female for centuries. She was the same Helen of the Trojan War. She continued to degrade over time, until she finally became a prostitute. She was the Lost Sheep spoken of in LUKE 15:6, it was claimed. Simon, Son of God, came down to earth to rescue her, and while he was on earth he would offer men his Gnosis (knowledge) for their salvation. He was never really a man, though, and though he appeared to suffer in Judea, he never really suffered. To believe in Simon is enough for salvation, and no further duties were required of his believers to be saved (as in EPHESIANS 2:8). Simon announced the world would eventually be destroyed, but his believers would be saved from the dark forces which govern these lower planes. The followers of Simon cast out demons, handle snakes, lay on hands for healing, and perform all sorts of magical rituals. It has been noted that the accounts of Jesus and his female companian Mary Magdellene are somewhat similar.
Respectfully, --Paul
-----------------------------------------------------
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13747-simon-magus Simon Magus was the founder of a Gnostic sect. In Acts viii. 9-13 he is represented as having been held in awe by the Samaritans as the manifestation of the hidden power of God, and as being called by them "The Great One." He is said to have allowed himself to be baptized by the apostle Philip; but, owing to his greediness, he relapsed into sorcery. While this story is legendary, Justin relates ("Apologia," i. 26, 56) that he was born in Gitta, a Samaritan village, and that he traveled together with a woman named Helena, whom he declared to be the "First Intelligence," he himself claiming to be the first manifestation of the hidden power of God. He went to Rome and performed miracles before the emperor Claudius; and the people erected statues to him. The legendary character of this story has been proved by the fact that the statue said to have been erected to him with the inscription "Semoni Sancto Deo Fidio" has been discovered, and it proves to have been dedicated to an ancient Roman deity.
www.reformation.org/simon-peter-simon-magus.html
Peter perceived that Simon was in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity [lawlessness]" (Verse 23).
NOTE: This verse has been misunderstood because the King James Version fails to give the full force of Peter’s accusation. This verse when understood in the manner Peter intended, is one of the most important of the whole chapter. IT IS A PROPHECY! Peter knew the mind of this man and what this man was to become. This is made plain by Sir William Ramsay in his Pictures of the Apostolic Church, p. 60. He says: "Peter rebuked him in strong and PROPHETIC TERMS. The PROPHECY is concealed in the ordinary translation: the Greek means ‘thou art FOR a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness [lawlessness]’, i.e., a cause of bitterness and corruption to others."
This makes it plain. Peter was uttering a prophecy by the Holy Spirit. He was telling what this Simon was to become; Lange’s Commentary says: "Peter’s words, literally, mean: ‘I regard you as a man whose influence WILL BE like that of bitter gall [poison] and a bond of unrighteousness [lawlessness], or, as a man who has reached such a state’." (Vol. 9, p. 148).
Not only was Simon, in Peter’s time, a great antagonist to the Church, but he would be the adversary in the future.
This prophecy is the KEY that opens to our understanding the ORIGINS of the heresies mentioned in the letters of the Apostles. Peter clearly knew Simon wouldn’t repent. Verse 22 shows that in the original.
De 29:16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt; and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; 17 And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them:) 18 Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;
It was a figure of speech adopted from the Old Testament which denoted going over to the idols and abominations of the heathen. Read Deuteronomy 29:16-18 and see how plainly this figure of speech is used. When the Apostle Peter applied to Simon Magus the phrase "gall of bitterness," he meant that Simon would be the responsible party for the introduction of heathen beliefs and idols into Christianity. The prophecy takes on a new and important scope when we realize this real meaning of Peter’s prophecy.
No wonder Jude later says, speaking about the very men who followed Simon Magus (including Simon himself): "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED to this condemnation" (Verse 4). We can be confident that Peter recognized that Satan was going to use this Simon Magus as the GREAT PROTAGONIST OF FALSE CHRISTIANITY.
What Deities Did the Samaritans Worship?
It will pay us to notice the gods and goddesses that these forefathers of Simon Magus brought with them to Samaria. The people from the City of Babylon adored SUCCOTH-BENOTH; the Cuthites: NERGAL; the Hamathites: ASHIMA; the Avites: NIBHAZ and TAR-TAK; the Sepharvites: ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH. The first deity is SUCCOTH-BENOTH, a goddess. It was Semiramis in the form of Venus. Listen to Jones in his Proper Names of the O.T., p. 348. He says the name signifies "Tabernacles of daughters." It means: "Chapels made of green boughs, which the men of Babylon, who had been transported into Samaria, erected in honor to Venus, and where their daughters were PROSTITUTED by the devotees of that abominable goddess. It was the custom of Babylon, the mother of harlots, and therefore HER SONS DID THE SAME THING IN SAMARIA."
What about the god NERGAL of Cuth? We are informed by McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia that the name signifies "the great man," "the great hero" or "the god of the chase," i.e., the Hunter. In other words, as the Encyclopedia further points out, he was a form of NIMROD. This Hunter-god was honored by the people of CUTH for Arabian tradition tells us that CUTH was the special city of NIMROD (vol. VI, p. 950).
The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us that he was the great pagan god of propitiation, i.e., the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers (p. 42). This god was the pagan REDEEMER—the OSIRIS of Egyptian fame or the dying NIMROD.
The Avites worshipped NIBHAZ (masc.—the god of HADES) and TAR-TAK, "the mother of the gods". This last-mentioned goddess was supposedly the mother of the Assyrian race, or, as Jones says, she was SEMIRAMIS (see p. 354). The fifth Babylonian tribe worshiped pre-eminently two gods. ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH. The first was the "god of fire," the Sun or the Phoenician Baal (Jones, p. 14); the second was "the god of the flocks" or the Greek HERMES, the Good Shepherd (p. 32).
(It is self-evident that these gods and goddesses were the major Babylonian deities, and at the same time, the very gods and goddesses which the Roman Catholic Church deifies today as Christ, Mary, etc.) Simon Magus grew up in this mixed-up society. The Samaritans called themselves the people of the True God, but religiously were practicing Babylonians. Simon himself was a priest of these people (the word "Magus" is the Chaldean/Persian word for "priest"). Thus, in the encounter of Peter with Simon Magus, we find the first real connection of true Christianity with the Chaldean priest who was prophesied to bring in its false counterpart.
"The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was characteristic of Gnosticism, and which was especially obvious in the Simonian system, is readily explicable in the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with Christian teaching without becoming a genuine member" (Ibid. Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, , p. 496).
In the New Testament we read of people following the doctrines of NICOLAUS (Nimrod). They were called Nicolaitanes. McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopaedia speaking of them says: "The sect of the Nicolaitanes is described as following the doctrine or teaching of Balaam—and it appears not improbable that this name is employed symbolically, as NICOLAUS is equivalent in meaning to BALAAM" (vol. 1, p. 621).
Yes, the two names NICOLAUS and BALAAM are exactly the same in meaning—they both point to NIMROD, the originator of paganism. We also find that when Simon Magus (alias Simon Peter) "Christianized" the religion of NIMROD, John the Apostle plainly labels his followers NICOLAITANES and followers of BALAAM. All of the heresies mentioned in the Seven Churches are of only ONE system—the system of NIMROD, under the leadership of Simon Magus
SIMON Magus, just like his Samaritan forefathers, deliberately blended together the teachings of Babylon with Biblical phrases.
The Chief Books of Expose
There is hardly an epistle that does not mention the religion of Simon Magus. Even the scholars who have studied Church History have clearly seen that almost ALL of the references in the New Testament epistles exposing the errors in the first age of the Church are directed exclusively to Simon Magus, or his immediate followers.
Schaff’s History of the Church says the following about Simon Magus and his doctrines: "Plain traces of this error appear in the later epistles of Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the second epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the messages of the Apocalypse to the seven Churches."
"This heresy, in the second century, spread over the whole church, east and west, in the various schools of Gnosticism" (Apostolic Christianity, vol. 2, p. 556). But to single out the one Apostle who seems to have made the most deliberate and planned attack on the false Christianity of Simon Magus—we must look to John.
This book is perhaps the most important towards our study of SIMON MAGUS’ Christianity. Why? Three clear-cut reasons.
(1) The book of Acts gives us the PAST history of the Church. It tells us about Simon Magus who started the false system. Without the book of Acts identifying the MAN behind it all, the activities of that false system as recorded in the epistles becomes obscured and in some cases unintelligible. So, the book of Acts is vitally important!
(2) The epistles then come on the scene, describing the false system. With the epistles, the incident of SIMON MAGUS in Acts represents dynamite!! Each section of Scripture is designed to fulfill specific duties. It is when we understand those duties that the Bible really makes sense.
(3) Now to the all-important book of Revelation. While Acts describes the beginning of the false system; the epistles nail down its doctrines and describe its activities; the Book of Revelation next comes to the foreground showing the false system’s PROPHETIC HISTORY THROUGH ALL ERAS OF THE CHURCH. We must remember that Revelation intends to show us "things which shall be hereafter." This is its duty—and it marvelously performs what it was intended to do.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 19, 2019 15:27:50 GMT -5
True - true - probably true - and I don't care
I don't understabd your point The Roman Church is the Gnostics and the Real Christians were hunted down and eliminated but the those this same church calls Gnostic are heretics?
BUT - you do point out that Peter - therefore John Mark - therefore Egypt is much closer to Christ than Rome
I agree
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 20, 2019 13:16:43 GMT -5
Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is Explain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 13:24:28 GMT -5
The only thing we can be certain of is the Archon Satan never wanted the true church to flourish, and set up churches that blended paganism and Christianity into them, making a mix of confusion. We certainly ponder confusion. The snippets of Gnostic material you have shown me over the months, do show agreement with the Hebrew, but overall a layman reading Gnostic material would be totally lost in the blend of Greek, Babylonian and Pagan ideas. I don't have a reason to add Gnostic material to help me augment my Hebrew material. But you like to, OK your choice. I hope it works out for you. When I am in trouble understanding the Hebrew, I use Ellen White as my Hebrew English translator. She has never let me down in any test I have done to her. If the Gnostic material could be evaluated in the same way, perhaps one could test it and use it more? For example gnosis.org/welcome.html Lets test the idea that Father "ab" also means Fruit.That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the Father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the Christ. Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth which he taught them. For this reason error was angry with him, so it persecuted him. It was distressed by him, so it made him powerless. He was nailed to a cross. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery. I like the way it describes Jesus as the fruit of the Father, but this is not validating Father as fruit, a Hebrew concept. 44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."
45. Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit. This quote is poorly linking Father to Fruit as the Hebrew word "ab" does. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a "father," the name "son" follows. But the single one, who alone is the Father, is like a root, with tree, branches and fruit.This quote is speaking of the origin of two other Godhead members, from the Father as fruit, this is a different discussion in the Hebrew showing the Father as fruit. I do not like the suggestion on origins of the Godhead. After Jesus brought forth further, he brought forth for the All those of the Pleroma and of the syzygy, that is, the angels. For simultaneously with the agreement of the Pleroma her consort projected the angels, since he abides in the will of the Father. For this is the will of the Father: not to allow anything to happen in the Pleroma apart from a syzygy. Again, the will of the Father is: always produce and bear fruit. The context is weird, speaking of other things, the last sentence reads good though. The figure of the Holy Spirit is often refered to as Wisdom (Sophia) in Valentinianism (cf Irenaeus 1:4:1). Based on the parable of the sower, the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) is said to sow her "spiritual seed" within human beings. It is this seed which enables human beings to "bear fruit" through gnosis. All who have received this "seed" are part of the "Church" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:5:6, 1:8:1 cf Excepts of Theodotus 40,1).This is false. The Holy Spirit does NOT sow her seed into human as a process of salvation. This is a violation of Hebrew scriptures. The seed sown into followers come from the Father, who allows His Son of personify the Seed in Jesus as the Grain. Hence kiss the Grain refers to Jesus, the Son, who continues the love of the Father. And this is what the Son of Man reveals to us: It is fitting for you (pl.) to receive the word of truth, if one will receive it perfectly. But as for one who is in ignorance, it is difficult for him to diminish his works of darkness which he has done. Those who have known Imperishability, however, have been able to struggle against passions [...]. I have said to you, "Do not build nor gather for yourselves in the place where the brigands break open, but bring forth fruit to the Father." Nice, but does not say the Father is a simile of Fruit. I went through 30 references out of over 1000, in the website. The result is not encouraging for this first of Hebrew studies. spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htmHere is a link to my study of Ellen White using Jeff Benner's Hebrew {CTr 257.2} “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.”
{COL 301.2} "Herein is My Father glorified," Christ says, "that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples." John 15:8. Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this: “To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Good deeds are the fruit; that Christ requires us to bear: kind words, deeds of benevolence, of tender regard for the poor, the needy, the afflicted.{CSA 60.1} I notice the Gnostic study also shows this He was nailed to a cross. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. Nice However overall, the Gnostic material lacks 100% consistency, whereas the EGW material does not, at least from what I have investigated so far. Shalom Happy Sabbath
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 13:44:47 GMT -5
Dave: "Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is
Oh...
where does Scripture say Satan is always been restricted and can't do anything, as He is locked away in the Abyss? Like some fallen angels are?
If Satan came to Jesus and they went to a mountain, etc, Satan is NOT locked up in some abyss? If He comes as a roaring lion, He is not locked up YET...
Your Bible texts please?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 21, 2019 5:34:25 GMT -5
You are funny - I asked you In the New Testament, there is the ‘red dragon with seven heads and 10 horns’ and the Devil, who is Satan Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; Who are these multiple players of evil? One angel named Satan?
You forget the hierarchy evil these multiple players of evil? One angel named Satan? Your answer Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
A leader has an army, and makes war in heaven, long before mankind was created. Scripture really does say this.
Didn’t answer my question Who is the dragon? – who is the beast? – if they are both satan then satan is thrown nto the lake of fire where satan already is Question – if the beast is already in the lake of fire – before the final judgment – explain this! Your answer Question #1 - Who is the Beast of Revelation 20:10 Question #2 – who is the satan of Revelation 20:10 The Greek (/Hebrew) has three listed authorities: devil <diabolos> :simile of Satan as head of his army of fallen angels beast <therion> : simile of human heads and their armies of evil men the false prophet <pseudoprophetes> : simile of salvation powers pretending to be Jesus, true disciples with true doctrine, but actually leads many human astray, deceiving them. All of these words are functions or actions, not named Beings per se'. And to make your point – you include This website explains many details about Simon. I asked again Question #1 - Who is the Beast of Revelation 20:10 Question #2 – who is the satan of Revelation 20:10 Your answer Dave: "So – you are saying that Rev 20:10 satan was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also is satanWhen does Rev 20:10 occur in time? The whole of Rev 19 is about the Second Coming of Jesus, the wedding feast for the saints, and the end of the beast and Satan into the lake of fire. So Rev 20 concerns the details in Rev 19, some more. But Rev 20 is way into the future, just after the Second Coming of Jesus. Why do you have a problem with the verse? I asked again Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is Let me use your word – ridicules Your answer Simon Magus was the founder of a Gnostic sect. So I asked again Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is Explain You said For example gnosis.org/welcome.html Lets test the idea that Father "ab" also means Fruit.and Dave: "Does not matter when this verse takes place It is about the end of the beast and satan You just tried to prove to me that the beast = satan and satan = satan therefore satan is thrown into the lake where satan already is If Satan came to Jesus and they went to a mountain, etc, Satan is NOT locked up in some abyss? If He comes as a roaring lion, He is not locked up YET... Your Bible texts please? Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
|
|