• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

1213

Well-Known Member
What about London? I think of Babylon as a very small version of London.
Three are similarities, but, I think the description of "Babylon" fits better to New York or Rome/Vatican.

He cried with a mighty voice, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and she has become a habitation of demons, a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird! For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality, the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury." I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don't receive of her plagues, for her sins have reached to the sky, and God has remembered her iniquities. Return to her just as she returned, and repay her double as she did, and according to her works. In the cup which she mixed, mix to her double. However much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see mourning.' Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; for the Lord God who has judged her is strong. The kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived wantonly with her, will weep and wail over her, when they look at the smoke of her burning, standing far away for the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For your judgment has come in one hour.' The merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise any more;
Rev. 18:2-11

I think that bolded fits well to New York, which is the place of UN headquarter. But, this doesn't necessary mean it is the right understanding of the scripture. As the following shows, it probably should be understood spiritually. For example many waters are peoples and nations. And mountains are kings. But, that could still fit to UN and New York. I think one should be careful with this and not make hasty conclusions. What I say in this is not necessary correct, but I don't think these fit to Jerusalem or Israel although I think Israel should be better.

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here. I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and those who dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her sexual immorality."...
...And on her forehead a name was written, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered with great amazement. The angel said to me, "Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that you saw was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go into destruction. Those who dwell on the earth and whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel when they see that the beast was, and is not, and shall be present.{TR reads "yet is" instead of "shall be present"} Here is the mind that has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. They are seven kings. Five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come. When he comes, he must continue a little while. The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goes to destruction. The ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour. These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast. These will war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings. They also will overcome who are with him, called and chosen and faithful." He said to me, "The waters which you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages. The ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute, and will make her desolate, and will make her naked, and will eat her flesh, and will burn her utterly with fire. For God has put in their hearts to do what he has in mind, and to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished. The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Rev. 17:1-18
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Actually, no. (Matt 27:62 - 28:15)
Those who had him killed were worried that he had said he would rise from the dead and ordered a security detail to guard the tomb. Someone in a white outfit, who shined like a lightning bolt, appeared out of the sky and removed the stone, opening the tomb. The guards fell down like dead men. They reported what they saw and were paid a large bribe to keep it a secret, so that Rome would not find out. One has to wonder what the world would look like today, if Rome had found out what happened.

Actually No ... That is not the "Original Story" :) The original "unrevised" , unedited version of the story is Mark 1-16:8 .. and the women did not tell anyone because they were afraid .. no bribe required to keep their mouths shut :)

1) no virgin Birth
2) no lineage back to David
3) no physical resurrection - no stories of the corpse wandering around after death talking to people ..
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Actually, no. (Matt 27:62 - 28:15)
Those who had him killed were worried that he had said he would rise from the dead and ordered a security detail to guard the tomb. Someone in a white outfit, who shined like a lightning bolt, appeared out of the sky and removed the stone, opening the tomb. The guards fell down like dead men. They reported what they saw and were paid a large bribe to keep it a secret, so that Rome would not find out. One has to wonder what the world would look like today, if Rome had found out what happened.

Actually No ... That is not the "Original Story" :) The original "unrevised" , unedited version of the story is Mark 1-16:8 .. and the women did not tell anyone because they were afraid .. no bribe required to keep their mouths shut :)

1) no virgin Birth
2) no lineage back to David
3) no physical resurrection - no stories of the corpse wandering around after death talking to people ..

Who is zombie Jesus? I was under the impression that he was crucified and counted among the dead, like Lazarus who was a leper and outcast from society, being counted among the dead. Jesus left his tomb and walked among his disciples after being counted among the dead. Let the dead bury the dead statement comes to mind. I've never heard of zombie Jesus. I've read about the Jesus who was beaten beyond recognition and nailed to a cross, then placed in a cave (tomb) and left for dead, after being counted among the dead, but I've never heard about "zombie" Jesus. I've read about the Jesus who rose up from that state to walk a little longer with his friends, but I've never read about a zombie Jesus.

Zombie Jesus vs. Friend Jesus who took one for his team to save them from the roman soldiers by going willingly instead of resisting with violence beyond Peters striking the ear of one of them with the sword.

How old are you? I remember the kids saying similar things in high school about a stand-up guy. His name was Jesus. Zombie Jesus wasn't part of his history.

A Zombie is a dead corpse coming back to life wandering around touching and talking to people .. sometimes refered to as a Physical Resurrection in the case of Jesus .. or just Zombie Jesus.

But worry not .. this was not in the original version of the story .. so what people telling you "Zombie Jesus" are saying is that there was NOT any Zombie Jesus in the original version of the story .. It is all the others ... including yourself that have not only heard of Zombie Jesus -- but believe in the truth of the stories .. The zombie Jesus stories you falsely claim to have never read or heard about :) This is like some kind of Judas thing .. Right !
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
..



A Zombie is a dead corpse coming back to life wandering around touching and talking to people .. sometimes refered to as a Physical Resurrection in the case of Jesus .. or just Zombie Jesus.

But worry not .. this was not in the original version of the story .. so what people telling you "Zombie Jesus" are saying is that there was NOT any Zombie Jesus in the original version of the story .. It is all the others ... including yourself that have not only heard of Zombie Jesus -- but believe in the truth of the stories .. The zombie Jesus stories you falsely claim to have never read or heard about :) This is like some kind of Judas thing .. Right !

Lazarus wasn't dead, yet he was counted among the dead. He was a leper cast out of society. Jesus was likewise counted among the dead, after being tried, crucified, and cast out of society and like Lazarus, placed in a tomb (cave). The difference, I think is they expected Jesus to die in there, to starve or by infected wounds, but he didn't die in there, but he was counted among the dead and he did come out from that place. Your idea of zombie Jesus is yours to burden, and you misplace that representation on me. Even when we die for real it's counted as sleep, and there are more than enough dead people walking to acknowledge no life before being born again in truth. Truth being what it is. True set apart from false concepts and premises, and even then, none of us are exempt from error, so it's a process of being guided into all truth by and with a truthful spirit. People can be too superstitious. Apparently, you buy right into that profile even when you reject it, and you misplace it on people like myself, even after we go to decent lengths in attempt to articulate our position in way that would help you comprehend the held position itself. I know friend Jesus would have been a friend to a friend. I don't know zombie Jesus. I know about the Jesus I understand to have been a friend and a teacher.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Lazarus wasn't dead, yet he was counted among the dead. He was a leper cast out of society. Jesus was likewise counted among the dead, after being tried, crucified, and cast out of society and like Lazarus, placed in a tomb (cave). The difference, I think is they expected Jesus to die in there, to starve or by infected wounds, but he didn't die in there, but he was counted among the dead and he did come out from that place. Your idea of zombie Jesus is yours to burden, and you misplace that representation on me. Even when we die for real it's counted as sleep, and there are more than enough dead people walking to acknowledge no life before being born again in truth. Truth being what it is. True set apart from false concepts and premises, and even then, none of us are exempt from error, so it's a process of being guided into all truth by and with a truthful spirit. People can be too superstitious. Apparently, you buy right into that profile even when you reject it, and you misplace it on people like myself, even after we go to decent lengths in attempt to articulate our position in way that would help you comprehend the held position itself. I know friend Jesus would have been a friend to a friend. I don't know zombie Jesus. I know about the Jesus I understand to have been a friend and a teacher.

We are talking about Jesus .. not Lazarus .. and how is one supposed to comprehend your position .. when you can not keep track of what page you are on ? after which you start going on about being born again in Truth .. like you have come across the Holy grail .. followed by demonization of the other "Apparently you buy right into " some strawman . like a good adherent to one trained in the arts of sophisticated cult mind control ..

"I don't know Zombie Jesus" he cries ? but I do not believe it .. do you not believe in the resurrection ? do you not believe that Lord and Saviour Jesus presented himself before doubting Thomas .. asked him to put finger in the hole ?
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
We are talking about Jesus .. not Lazarus .. and how is one supposed to comprehend your position .. when you can not keep track of what page you are on ? after which you start going on about being born again in Truth .. like you have come across the Holy grail .. followed by demonization of the other "Apparently you buy right into " some strawman . like a good adherent to one trained in the arts of sophisticated cult mind control ..

"I don't know Zombie Jesus" he cries ? but I do not believe it .. do you not believe in the resurrection ? do you not believe that Lord and Saviour Jesus presented himself before doubting Thomas .. asked him to put finger in the hole ?

I'm suggesting he lived through the crucifixion and appeared to more than just Thomas after leaving his tomb (catacomb/cave) similar to Lazarus. That was the comparison...That Lazarus was also counted among the dead when Jesus called him out of his tomb/grave. They were both counted among the dead. Neither were zombies, they were simply outcasts at that juncture in their lives. It makes more sense than "zombie Jesus" or whatever you claim him to be in reality yet in error when applied to me. By the way, I denied the sacrifice for myself, but I honor what he did for his friends, and I still honor what I was taught by reading about him. Truth, whether truth is the holy grail or not, is important enough to acknowledge when enough evidence is presented for it to be counted as true. Some call it faith...The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I'm hoping they will find a cure for cancer one day. They're still working on it. I'm thinking there is enough evidence to substantiate the hope to continue with the efforts.

 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
I'm suggesting he lived through the crucifixion and appeared to more than just Thomas after leaving his tomb (catacomb/cave) similar to Lazarus. That was the comparison...That Lazarus was also counted among the dead when Jesus called him out of his tomb/grave. They were both counted among the dead. Neither were zombies, they were simply outcasts at that juncture in their lives. It makes more sense than "zombie Jesus" or whatever you claim him to be in reality yet in error when applied to me. By the way, I denied the sacrifice for myself, but I honor what he did for his friends, and I still honor what I was taught by reading about him. Truth, whether truth is the holy grail or not, is important enough to acknowledge when enough evidence is presented for it to be counted as true. Some call it faith...The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I'm hoping they will find a cure for cancer one day. They're still working on it. I'm thinking there is enough evidence to substantiate the hope to continue with the efforts.

It’s well known he couldn’t have survived crucifixion after being beaten near death then forced to carry cross. Hen they pierced his side fluid came out that gathered in his lungs and around his heart and when that happens you’re well beyond gone according to doctors
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
It’s well known he couldn’t have survived crucifixion after being beaten near death then forced to carry cross. Hen they pierced his side fluid came out that gathered in his lungs and around his heart and when that happens you’re well beyond gone according to doctors

Yeah well, it's well known that it's not possible to die and come back to life 3 days later, so based on what has become common knowledge, he either survived or he didn't rise out of the grave. I thought including Lazarus in the literature was telling, given he was an outcasted leper counted among the dead, who Jesus allegedly spoke out of the grave.

None of this changes anything, Jesus was still crucified, counted among the dead, rose three days later, appeared to his disciples, and later left the way he came to sit at the right hand of his father. It's the way I understand the events. I understand the holy spirit to be a truthful spirit, an honest one, and one able to lead us into all truth, which makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Yeah well, it's well known that it's not possible to die and come back to life 3 days later, so based on what has become common knowledge, he either survived or he didn't rise out of the grave. I thought including Lazarus in the literature was telling, given he was an outcasted leper counted among the dead, who Jesus allegedly spoke out of the grave.

None of this changes anything, Jesus was still crucified, counted among the dead, rose three days later, appeared to his disciples, and later left the way he came to sit at the right hand of his father. It's the way I understand the events. I understand the holy spirit to be a truthful spirit, an honest one, and one able to lead us into all truth, which makes sense to me.
Content 1: it's well known that it's not possible to die and come back to life 3 days later, so based on what has become common knowledge, he either survived

Content 2: Jesus was still crucified, counted among the dead, rose three days later, appeared to his disciples, and later left the way he came to sit at the right hand of his father.
Friend @Balthazzar
What a contradictory contents the above post has!?!

Regards
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
Friend @Balthazzar
What a contradictory contents the above post has!?!

Regards

In articulated context, none. It appears that you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus was crucified, beaten beyond recognition, placed in a tomb and left for dead, yet survived and came out a few days later. That's specifically why I brought up Lazarus in a similar context. They were counted among the dead but were not dead.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
I'm suggesting he lived through the crucifixion and appeared to more than just Thomas after leaving his tomb (catacomb/cave) similar to Lazarus. That was the comparison...That Lazarus was also counted among the dead when Jesus called him out of his tomb/grave. They were both counted among the dead. Neither were zombies, they were simply outcasts at that juncture in their lives. It makes more sense than "zombie Jesus" or whatever you claim him to be in reality yet in error when applied to me. By the way, I denied the sacrifice for myself, but I honor what he did for his friends, and I still honor what I was taught by reading about him. Truth, whether truth is the holy grail or not, is important enough to acknowledge when enough evidence is presented for it to be counted as true. Some call it faith...The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I'm hoping they will find a cure for cancer one day. They're still working on it. I'm thinking there is enough evidence to substantiate the hope to continue with the efforts.

Brother Balth .. listen carfully you are confusing the Physical resurrection (zombie Jesus) .. with the Spiritual Resurrection .

"In the Original Story" the one you can not seem to come to grips with --- the resurrection of Jesus is NOT - Zombie Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. asking folks to touch is once dead corpse that has now been re-animated.

From the information we have from Paul -- The resurrecton of Jesus is "Spiritual" .. not Physical .. Paul likens the appearances of Jesus to his Vision .. the 500 to akin to a crowd seeing Mary in the Clouds .. The early Christians don't any stories about Jesus wandering round in the Flesh the first Pope Clement ~95-100 AD .. knows some of the Gospel of Matt .. but knows nothing of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the first we hear of this is from Ignatius ~ 105-115 AD which suggest that these stories were added to Matt at a later date .. assuming a compostion of around 80-90 AD.

The Lazarus story is the Osirus story .. has nothing to do with "The Path - The Way - The Light" -- a later addition ... same as the Author of Matt adding the "Zombie Jesus" stories. .. and while Lazarus may not have been counted among the Dead.... Jesus was counted among the dead.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
Brother Balth .. listen carfully you are confusing the Physical resurrection (zombie Jesus) .. with the Spiritual Resurrection .

"In the Original Story" the one you can not seem to come to grips with --- the resurrection of Jesus is NOT - Zombie Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. asking folks to touch is once dead corpse that has now been re-animated.

From the information we have from Paul -- The resurrecton of Jesus is "Spiritual" .. not Physical .. Paul likens the appearances of Jesus to his Vision .. the 500 to akin to a crowd seeing Mary in the Clouds .. The early Christians don't any stories about Jesus wandering round in the Flesh the first Pope Clement ~95-100 AD .. knows some of the Gospel of Matt .. but knows nothing of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the first we hear of this is from Ignatius ~ 105-115 AD which suggest that these stories were added to Matt at a later date .. assuming a compostion of around 80-90 AD.

The Lazarus story is the Osirus story .. has nothing to do with "The Path - The Way - The Light" -- a later addition ... same as the Author of Matt adding the "Zombie Jesus" stories. .. and while Lazarus may not have been counted among the Dead.... Jesus was counted among the dead.

Oh, you mean the spirit of truth coming in the flesh. 1 John 4 speaks about it. It's how we know truth from error. Truth has come in the flesh. Jesus came out of the cave/tomb/grave. You claim grave robbers. I claim he didn't die, and the stone was moved. I don't claim zombie Jesus. I claim he lived Jesus. I also claim that the authorities counted him among the dead pool of people. Not that they were actually dead. They were outcasted and expected to die, like Lazarus with his leprosy. That's a different Lazarus than the one spoken of with the rich man. It must have been a common name or a story to make a point. I don't much trust your dates, nor your grave robber affixation.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near
The early Christians don't any stories about Jesus wandering round in the Flesh the first Pope Clement ~95-100 AD .. knows some of the Gospel of Matt .. but knows nothing of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the first we hear of this is from Ignatius ~ 105-115 AD which suggest that these stories were added to Matt at a later date .. assuming a compostion of around 80-90 AD.

The Lazarus story is the Osirus story .. has nothing to do with "The Path - The Way - The Light" -- a later addition ... same as the Author of Matt adding the "Zombie Jesus" stories. .. and while Lazarus may not have been counted among the Dead.... Jesus was counted among the dead.
All good points, merits "winner".

Regards
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Oh, you mean the spirit of truth coming in the flesh. 1 John 4 speaks about it. It's how we know truth from error. Truth has come in the flesh. Jesus came out of the cave/tomb/grave. You claim grave robbers. I claim he didn't die, and the stone was moved. I don't claim zombie Jesus. I claim he lived Jesus. I also claim that the authorities counted him among the dead pool of people. Not that they were actually dead. They were outcasted and expected to die, like Lazarus with his leprosy. That's a different Lazarus than the one spoken of with the rich man. It must have been a common name or a story to make a point. I don't much trust your dates, nor your grave robber affixation.

No .. nothing like that .. what I mean is that the resurrection of Jesus was not Physical ... Not in the flesh .. "In the original story" there is no Zombie Jesus in the original story.

What part of "the original story" are you having so much difficulty understanding ? Stories of Zombie Jesus in John .. are NOT - the "Original Story" .. nor is the Zombie Jesus of Luke .. nor is the Zombie Jesus of Matt.


There is NO Zombie Jesus in Mark .. nor Paul. There is Zombie Jesus in Matt, Luke, John. U Undersetnd ?
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
No .. nothing like that .. what I mean is that the resurrection of Jesus was not Physical ... Not in the flesh .. "In the original story" there is no Zombie Jesus in the original story.

What part of "the original story" are you having so much difficulty understanding ? Stories of Zombie Jesus in John .. are NOT - the "Original Story" .. nor is the Zombie Jesus of Luke .. nor is the Zombie Jesus of Matt.


There is NO Zombie Jesus in Mark .. nor Paul. There is Zombie Jesus in Matt, Luke, John. U Undersetnd ?

I acknowledge what you're suggesting, but why should I give you the credence to override my own source? You've proven nothing more than a semi hostile, condescending, and overt self-piety demanding that you have the only authoritative stance because of what you claim to be the "original story" document, which differs from my source of reference. I did state that it's a spiritual thing also, but you failed to acknowledge that part of my stance. I did suggest that he didn't die from the crucifixion, but that he was counted among those counted as dead members of society after the crucifixion. At one time, when someone got the news of having malignant cancer, their countenance would fall to the point of acknowledging a death sentence. The same was true for those they would inform of the negative news, as if they had already counted themselves as being among the dead, having no hope. Lepers didn't have much hope back then, nor did Jesus, but both Jesus and Lazarus came out of their grave tombs, which conveys a message of hope to people. At least, that's how my source of reference teaches it. (That there's hope)
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
I acknowledge what you're suggesting, but why should I give you the credence to override my own source? You've proven nothing more than a semi hostile, condescending, and overt self-piety demanding that you have the only authoritative stance because of what you claim to be the "original story" document, which differs from my source of reference. I did state that it's a spiritual thing also, but you failed to acknowledge that part of my stance. I did suggest that he didn't die from the crucifixion, but that he was counted among those counted as dead members of society after the crucifixion. At one time, when someone got the news of having malignant cancer, their countenance would fall to the point of acknowledging a death sentence. The same was true for those they would inform of the negative news, as if they had already counted themselves as being among the dead, having no hope. Lepers didn't have much hope back then, nor did Jesus, but both Jesus and Lazarus came out of their grave tombs, which conveys a message of hope to people. At least, that's how my source of reference teaches it. (That there's hope)


No one asked you to give creedence to anything .. and what is overriding your source .. if not that which you give creedence to ?

This is about the simple fact that there is no Zombie Jesus in the original story .. something you now claim to give creedence to which is wonderful .. but then you go on to step on your own creedence.

It is not my claim that Mark is the Original Story ?? this is theologically accepted fact .. no one debates this ? except apparently your source ? What is this source.

Now you are claiming Jesus did not die from crucifixion .. but that has absolutely nothing to do with the story of mark being "the Original" .. meaning .. the original story in the Bible .. who knows what may have been writted about Jesus earlier than Mark .. sans Paul .. but he did not know Jesus so that from what Paul heard .. and Paul does not talk about Jesus in any case .

So Brother Bailth .. perhaps you have a source that pre-dates Mark .. .. do share this source.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
No one asked you to give creedence to anything .. and what is overriding your source .. if not that which you give creedence to ?

This is about the simple fact that there is no Zombie Jesus in the original story .. something you now claim to give creedence to which is wonderful .. but then you go on to step on your own creedence.

It is not my claim that Mark is the Original Story ?? this is theologically accepted fact .. no one debates this ? except apparently your source ? What is this source.

Now you are claiming Jesus did not die from crucifixion .. but that has absolutely nothing to do with the story of mark being "the Original" .. meaning .. the original story in the Bible .. who knows what may have been writted about Jesus earlier than Mark .. sans Paul .. but he did not know Jesus so that from what Paul heard .. and Paul does not talk about Jesus in any case .

So Brother Bailth .. perhaps you have a source that pre-dates Mark .. .. do share this source.
The first to be penned, yes ... then Luke, etc, and on to the others. It took what ... 30 years after Jesus died to document, right? The others came soon after Mark. Have you ever been to prison and removed from society? I view it similar to a prison sentence, only they were expected to die where they were placed, and counted as if they had done so already, no longer to be part of society. I give my source its due credence.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
The first to be penned, yes ... then Luke, etc, and on to the others. It took what ... 30 years after Jesus died to document, right? The others came soon after Mark. Have you ever been to prison and removed from society? I view it similar to a prison sentence, only they were expected to die where they were placed, and counted as if they had done so already, no longer to be part of society. I give my source its due credence.

There is a big difference writing at the time of the death of .. by an author closely connected to 1st person .. prior to the destruction of the Temple .. First Edition... ~60-65AD ..

and the unknown author of Matt .. writing 80-90AD .. after the destruction of the Temple -- the Church of Jerusalem no more .. Pauline Christianity running with the Ball .. .. this Author decides to give us an updated and revised version of Mark.

The Author uses all of Mark .. sans a few passages derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples -- and adds details to the story .. some of which are thought to have come from some lost earlier writings.

The only thing you need to understand about the other Gospels .. for the moment .. but have had great difficulty doing so .. is that the Gospel of Mark is the Original Story .. and Matt is an edited version of that story .. Mark with added material .. the author using all of Mark except the few passages he found derogatory to our lord and saviour and/or the disciples .. which unfortunately is the first example of Pious Fraud .. a small sin of omission but one perhaps not so easily neglected .. considering the validity of the Physical Resurrection stories. ... which don't seem to have been in the original version of Matt .. either. Clement having knowledge of Matt .. bit no knowledge of Zombie Jesus stories .. and now we are 100 AD .. a time quite distant from the Gospel of Mark .. that these stories are later added to Matt.. just as they were later added to Mark .. when the Pious Fraudsters got really brave .. a little too brave for their britches in retrospect.

Now look Brother Balth .. now we all don't want to doubt the numbers of folks having secret sources that no one has ever heard of before .. but it is hard not to be skeptical .. when you will not state what source you are using nor cite from it.

For now .. I will accept the version given in the Gospel of Mark over this mystery source ..
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
There is a big difference writing at the time of the death of .. by an author closely connected to 1st person .. prior to the destruction of the Temple .. First Edition... ~60-65AD ..

and the unknown author of Matt .. writing 80-90AD .. after the destruction of the Temple -- the Church of Jerusalem no more .. Pauline Christianity running with the Ball .. .. this Author decides to give us an updated and revised version of Mark.

The Author uses all of Mark .. sans a few passages derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples -- and adds details to the story .. some of which are thought to have come from some lost earlier writings.

The only thing you need to understand about the other Gospels .. for the moment .. but have had great difficulty doing so .. is that the Gospel of Mark is the Original Story .. and Matt is an edited version of that story .. Mark with added material .. the author using all of Mark except the few passages he found derogatory to our lord and saviour and/or the disciples .. which unfortunately is the first example of Pious Fraud .. a small sin of omission but one perhaps not so easily neglected .. considering the validity of the Physical Resurrection stories. ... which don't seem to have been in the original version of Matt .. either. Clement having knowledge of Matt .. bit no knowledge of Zombie Jesus stories .. and now we are 100 AD .. a time quite distant from the Gospel of Mark .. that these stories are later added to Matt.. just as they were later added to Mark .. when the Pious Fraudsters got really brave .. a little too brave for their britches in retrospect.

Now look Brother Balth .. now we all don't want to doubt the numbers of folks having secret sources that no one has ever heard of before .. but it is hard not to be skeptical .. when you will not state what source you are using nor cite from it.

For now .. I will accept the version given in the Gospel of Mark over this mystery source ..

It's called the bible, complete with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John along with the other NT books included in the accepted canon. The way we read it and apply what's written differs from person to person and branch to branch. You know a little of how I discern the text. I've read a few of the Nag Hamadi texts, but never studied them like the bible. Like I stated, I am required to utilize what I've been given as my source for information. I understand it differently than some, and although many others accept "zombie Jesus" (your words) I don't. I don't even accept the sacrifice as being for myself, but rather for his friends who walked with him. He has become a teacher to me, and I view him worthy of that vocation and honorable enough to listen to him when I'm able.

Edit: I guess after realizing the correct way to honor God, I decided to be more truthful in my approach, which means I felt and feel obligated to be practical about it and sincere. If I don't understand it, I'll find a way to acknowledge a possible practical scenario, based on what I understand and know about life. I don't expect to live after I die, but I do expect to be recycled and given a new life as a new creation, minus recollection of my former self. It's the transformation of energy, dna, and I suppose I'll become whatever it is that's next on the recycle, cycle. I'll die once, I'll live once, being recreated to die again after I become a new creation, over and over and over as a unique individual each time or life cycle. I'm hoping to make improvements each life, so I spend a lot of time working on me in preparation for my next round, and to make life a little better in the here and now when able. It may be a type of spiritual alchemy or getting accustomed to speaking and living truthfully. I wasn't always so truthful. They say we're born liars, and I'm fairly sure they are right. Truth is something we grow into.
 
Last edited:
Top