If you remove John, Paul, Simon who all teach as Balaam would and are all clearly referenced in other places as being false, it completely changes the whole Bibles meaning of what Christ came for and to its true meaning; here is a quick look why.
John is most likely the John (Nicholas) Nicodemus, (Nicolaitans)
This appears he records his own account of events, visiting Yeshua and other things that would most certainly only have of been known by someone in his position or a member of the high council that year.
It Includes many private conversations between the Pharisees; in fact the whole context of his gospel is implied that way, of a Pharisees perspective on things.
There are points that contradict the other gospels and the main point of causing people to believe Yeshua said points that then contradict the Torah and his own teachings, he clearly didnt from what we can see from 3 other witnesses.
Paul was a Pharisee, the only person who said he was sent is him self and his own friends.
Removing hankies from your pocket as magic, is a bit amateurish to say the least.
Clearly on many point he contradicts Christ entirely and completely changes the meaning to his own liking or illness, on well over 36 points.
Jeremiah 23 is the best reference of what to look for in any of this, concerning what a fake prophet is.
Simon being labelled stone is a clear sign by Yeshua, that he stood against him not with him.
If they hadnt changed the name to (jesus) it would also be possible to see that as jeshua in Zechariah is said to have stone laid before him also, it is the same.
Well why would Yeshua name Simon stone and then when saying Judas and Simon will betray me, it says plural and they in Greek.
Now given that Yeshua calls Simon Satan and says he has the power to bind as do the Pharisee and then that Simon preaches Balaam teachings (God would sacrifice his own son) to all of Israel sort of implies a stone as written.
Now in Zechariah 11, it foretells that grace and inheritance (in Hebrew) will be cut off, if they pay the 30 pieces of silver and put it in the potters field.
Yeshua reiterated this in the parable of the vine dressers son, that the foolish shepherds will get nothing, which many have taken as just Israel, yet this implies all those who would follow a sacrifice (Basis of Christianity), as he asked I require mercy and not sacrifice, meaning as
which doesnt follow Christ, yet the 3 above who are clearly in direct violation of what a prophet is and should do; plus the law of the Torah in many places and being foretold to do that, only confirms God is in complete control of events in time.
Now in 1977 they also released the extra books of Maccabees that explain reasoning, and a person by the name of Simon, went to Rome, told how there was gold hidden in Israel and so Rome robbed it; then under sentence of death force fed wine and forbidden meat, named as the abomination of desolation.
So when we have a similar Simon in Acts who also encouraged the eating of meat (communion is also false under what Christ said him self)?
Then maybe the picture we have been presented with since the Bible was canonized is not the truth and in fact the Bible foretells this in the old testament.
Mohammeds main point was this that the Bible had been changed, agreed!
I doubt if it was all fixed we would have so many wars and fighting over religions.
It does help having a full revised copy released in 1977, to fill in many gaps also, like the abomination of desolation having already taken place.
Anyways that is a brief introduction and will fill in all missing gaps with scriptures prophecy and to the letter in so many places, the Bible makes far more sense like that and appears that is what is meant.
Some of this will take E-Sword to get the extra Greek and Hebrew translations for references.
This is not to attack Yeshua, yet to fix the books and replace what was taken, return his true meaning to him.
Please forgive scripture references to begin and I know I could take each point separately, yet when all are as one thing, the Pharisees and teaching of Balaam then this needs to be approached as a court case would, and so that is the brief.
If you defend the Pharisee then you dont stand for Christ, this is intended as we are in defence of Christ and what the Bible means without Pharisees.
Please ask if anything you are unsure on
:angel2: there are a lot of Articles on our site and have been working on this allot to explain it all over the last 3/4 years.
John is most likely the John (Nicholas) Nicodemus, (Nicolaitans)
This appears he records his own account of events, visiting Yeshua and other things that would most certainly only have of been known by someone in his position or a member of the high council that year.
It Includes many private conversations between the Pharisees; in fact the whole context of his gospel is implied that way, of a Pharisees perspective on things.
There are points that contradict the other gospels and the main point of causing people to believe Yeshua said points that then contradict the Torah and his own teachings, he clearly didnt from what we can see from 3 other witnesses.
Paul was a Pharisee, the only person who said he was sent is him self and his own friends.
Removing hankies from your pocket as magic, is a bit amateurish to say the least.
Clearly on many point he contradicts Christ entirely and completely changes the meaning to his own liking or illness, on well over 36 points.
Jeremiah 23 is the best reference of what to look for in any of this, concerning what a fake prophet is.
Simon being labelled stone is a clear sign by Yeshua, that he stood against him not with him.
If they hadnt changed the name to (jesus) it would also be possible to see that as jeshua in Zechariah is said to have stone laid before him also, it is the same.
Well why would Yeshua name Simon stone and then when saying Judas and Simon will betray me, it says plural and they in Greek.
Now given that Yeshua calls Simon Satan and says he has the power to bind as do the Pharisee and then that Simon preaches Balaam teachings (God would sacrifice his own son) to all of Israel sort of implies a stone as written.
Now in Zechariah 11, it foretells that grace and inheritance (in Hebrew) will be cut off, if they pay the 30 pieces of silver and put it in the potters field.
Yeshua reiterated this in the parable of the vine dressers son, that the foolish shepherds will get nothing, which many have taken as just Israel, yet this implies all those who would follow a sacrifice (Basis of Christianity), as he asked I require mercy and not sacrifice, meaning as
Well Judas did that to the letter and along with the 3 foolish shepherds and they did re-establish under the banner of Christianity.
which doesnt follow Christ, yet the 3 above who are clearly in direct violation of what a prophet is and should do; plus the law of the Torah in many places and being foretold to do that, only confirms God is in complete control of events in time.
Now in 1977 they also released the extra books of Maccabees that explain reasoning, and a person by the name of Simon, went to Rome, told how there was gold hidden in Israel and so Rome robbed it; then under sentence of death force fed wine and forbidden meat, named as the abomination of desolation.
So when we have a similar Simon in Acts who also encouraged the eating of meat (communion is also false under what Christ said him self)?
Then maybe the picture we have been presented with since the Bible was canonized is not the truth and in fact the Bible foretells this in the old testament.
Mohammeds main point was this that the Bible had been changed, agreed!
I doubt if it was all fixed we would have so many wars and fighting over religions.
It does help having a full revised copy released in 1977, to fill in many gaps also, like the abomination of desolation having already taken place.
Anyways that is a brief introduction and will fill in all missing gaps with scriptures prophecy and to the letter in so many places, the Bible makes far more sense like that and appears that is what is meant.
Some of this will take E-Sword to get the extra Greek and Hebrew translations for references.
This is not to attack Yeshua, yet to fix the books and replace what was taken, return his true meaning to him.
Please forgive scripture references to begin and I know I could take each point separately, yet when all are as one thing, the Pharisees and teaching of Balaam then this needs to be approached as a court case would, and so that is the brief.
If you defend the Pharisee then you dont stand for Christ, this is intended as we are in defence of Christ and what the Bible means without Pharisees.
Please ask if anything you are unsure on
:angel2: there are a lot of Articles on our site and have been working on this allot to explain it all over the last 3/4 years.
