Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Truth About Revelation 14:12


  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

#16    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 05 July 2013 - 05:49 PM

"Truth" in some lunatic "revelation" is a contradiction in terms.

This thread is nonsensical.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#17    Bluefinger

Bluefinger

    I am a Christian, and I understand many don't like that. .

  • Member
  • 4,752 posts
  • Joined:02 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minot, ND

  • "You'll know them by their fruits."

Posted 05 July 2013 - 07:22 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 05 July 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

"Truth" in some lunatic "revelation" is a contradiction in terms.

This thread is nonsensical.

A revelation is proven true if what it says will happen actually comes to pass.  If the revelation of Jesus Christ is true, it is of utmost importance to search out.

It isn't good enough to say that the words are meaningless, confusing, or cryptic.  Cancer is meaningless, confusing, and cryptic.  That does not get us off the hook from searching it out and finally understanding it.  Or we can sit around and watch our loved ones perish because nobody understands it.

It is not enough to have a good mind.  The main thing is to use it well.     - Descartes

#18    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,420 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 July 2013 - 09:04 PM

Ben can't handle equality for all peoples in the eyes of God.   He thinks that anything challenging his "Chosen Ones" status is antisemitic and so we suffer about a hundred different discussions from him on this board that all keep repeating the same thing over and over again.  Grossly mischaracterizing (sp?) Christianity and making the same ludicrous claims ad nauseum like "80% of the New Testament is antisemitic"...bu blah blah blah.   It's still kosher to go around and slaughter the Philistines next door because you're Chosen and they're not.

Far better to be an open-minded seeker than a bitter denier.


"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#19    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 July 2013 - 06:53 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 02 July 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Just for interest, not all translations of this verse make it out as if the author is referring to the faith of Jesus.  For example:

NIV:  This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

ESV:  Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

NASB:  Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

In other words, the original Greek manuscripts had the meaning to refer to dedication to Jesus, faith in Jesus, rather than following the faith OF Jesus.  Just a thought to consider.  I generally use four different versions of the Bible when studying, to get a comprehensive view of different translators and their approach.  Of the four I generally use (three of them quoted above already), only the RSV translates it as the faith "of" Jesus.  And even with this translation, one could potentially argue that the intention of the author was to refer to the faith one has in Jesus' Messiah-status.   This seems more likely when you take into consideration the rest of Revelation, which speaks often of Jesus' divine nature (see Bluefinger's earlier post/s, he's brought up Revelation 1:5 already, among others).

Just a thought :)

I am aware of those versions you mention above but I preferred to use the most popular translation adopted by the whole English world: The KJV. "Here is the Patient of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." Since we don't have such an item in the Tanach, the problem remains a Christian problem. And a Christian problem because "Of Jesus" can by no way mean the same as "In Jesus."


#20    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:07 PM

View PostBluefinger, on 05 July 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Who was Melchizedek that he should have been able to bless Abraham, the father of many nations?  Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek.  If Aaron came from Abraham, and Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, then Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek is blessed and instituted the priesthood. And, of course, we know that the king of Israel is of the order of Melchizedek.

"The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'"  - Psalm 11:4

The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Bethshevah, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campain. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recongnize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level in Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.


#21    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:15 PM

View PostYamato, on 05 July 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Ben can't handle equality for all peoples in the eyes of God.   He thinks that anything challenging his "Chosen Ones" status is antisemitic and so we suffer about a hundred different discussions from him on this board that all keep repeating the same thing over and over again.  Grossly mischaracterizing (sp?) Christianity and making the same ludicrous claims ad nauseum like "80% of the New Testament is antisemitic"...bu blah blah blah.   It's still kosher to go around and slaughter the Philistines next door because you're Chosen and they're not.

Far better to be an open-minded seeker than a bitter denier.


Jews kill only in self-defense. How about the millions of Jews killed throughout History by Christians by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least the Holocaust, was it in self-defense? The problem with you is that Jews are supposed to stand on the front side of the barrow and never on the trigger side. I am sorry to disappoint you.

Edited by Ben Masada, 06 July 2013 - 07:16 PM.


#22    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,564 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 07 July 2013 - 03:18 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 06 July 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I am aware of those versions you mention above but I preferred to use the most popular translation adopted by the whole English world: The KJV. "Here is the Patient of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." Since we don't have such an item in the Tanach, the problem remains a Christian problem. And a Christian problem because "Of Jesus" can by no way mean the same as "In Jesus."
I'm sorry, Ben, but I reject the KJV.  The KJV is 402 years old, written in English that is now sometimes obsolete, and translated from an inferior set of ancient documents.  Most Christians I know today use a modern version of the Bible.  Only certain KJV-only'ists (as I call them) believe only in the authority of the KJV.  Under the circumstances, it appears you are picking a 402-year old version of the text to support your preconceptions when modern translations make it clear what the intentions of the author is.  If you knew about these versions and chose to ignore them, then all it proves is you are dishonest in attempting to preach your beliefs about Jesus to the rest of us on the internet.  Not the first time this has happened either.  You knew Jesus' comments to the Samaritan were allegorical and yet you still cited it as proof that Jesus was bigoted, when you later admitted he wasn't and you were just trying to make a point.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#23    Bluefinger

Bluefinger

    I am a Christian, and I understand many don't like that. .

  • Member
  • 4,752 posts
  • Joined:02 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minot, ND

  • "You'll know them by their fruits."

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:16 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 06 July 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:



The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Bethshevah, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campain. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king

Something isn't working out here.  Abram tithed Melchizedek.  Also, Paul was under the impression that Melchizedek's blessing meant something.  So did King David in his psalm.  If King David thought highly of Melchizedek's order, what Jew is justified in contradicting him?

Quote

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recongnize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level in Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

Okay.  Thanks for explaining.  But what does the name Melchizedek mean?  

If you look up the etymology, you'll find that it was not a gross forgery.  It was an interpretation by Paul.  The rightful king, or righteous king, is what Melchizedek means.  In that case, "a priest forever; a rightful king (Melchizedek) by my decree," is not a gross forgery.

Also, I find it hard that a 4th century Christian would have forged David's writings given the schism that Greek Christians and Hebrew Christians had over the change in the Sabbath observation to Sunday.  The Greek theology seemed to be greatly disinterested in David and Abraham (and Melchizedek for that matter) since many Greeks (especially the Alexandrian school of thought) believed that such characters in the Old Testament were really physical types of a spiritual reality.  And since Trinitarianism dominated the theology of the 4th century, I find it unlikely that a Melchizedek forgery ever made it.

If it were a forgery, the forgery would have occurred within the first two centuries of Christianity's existence, when Judaism was still the primary opponent to Christianity.  That places it within Paul's time.  And I don't think Paul would have forged it, especially knowing the great opposition he faced from Jews in the synagogues and public forum and from close Jewish friends of his.  A Pharisee would not have been that careless with Scripture.  (They preferred to make up their own traditions, according to Josephus.)

Edited by Bluefinger, 08 July 2013 - 02:20 AM.

It is not enough to have a good mind.  The main thing is to use it well.     - Descartes

#24    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:46 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 07 July 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

I'm sorry, Ben, but I reject the KJV.  The KJV is 402 years old, written in English that is now sometimes obsolete, and translated from an inferior set of ancient documents.  Most Christians I know today use a modern version of the Bible.  Only certain KJV-only'ists (as I call them) believe only in the authority of the KJV.  Under the circumstances, it appears you are picking a 402-year old version of the text to support your preconceptions when modern translations make it clear what the intentions of the author is.  If you knew about these versions and chose to ignore them, then all it proves is you are dishonest in attempting to preach your beliefs about Jesus to the rest of us on the internet.  Not the first time this has happened either.  You knew Jesus' comments to the Samaritan were allegorical and yet you still cited it as proof that Jesus was bigoted, when you later admitted he wasn't and you were just trying to make a point.

Well, what I have to say is that the more and more modern is a translation of the Bible made, the more are the temptations to fit in the religious preconceived notions of the translator. And when you show your preference for modern translations in spite of ancient ones, it only conveys that you don't care for the originals. Can you realize the danger here? As the Tanach is concerned I can never bring to you a testimony from the originals in Hebrews because you will reject it  on the basis of being too ancient. The Christian faction of "Messianic Judaism" is translating a super modern Bible where every reference to Jesus in their opinion is made to be a nominal reference. Imagine the boom that this method will cause in future generations that never had any contact with older translations?


#25    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostBluefinger, on 08 July 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Something isn't working out here.  Abram tithed Melchizedek.  Also, Paul was under the impression that Melchizedek's blessing meant something.  So did King David in his psalm.  If King David thought highly of Melchizedek's order, what Jew is justified in contradicting him?


Okay.  Thanks for explaining.  But what does the name Melchizedek mean?  

If you look up the etymology, you'll find that it was not a gross forgery.  It was an interpretation by Paul.  The rightful king, or righteous king, is what Melchizedek means.  In that case, "a priest forever; a rightful king (Melchizedek) by my decree," is not a gross forgery.

Also, I find it hard that a 4th century Christian would have forged David's writings given the schism that Greek Christians and Hebrew Christians had over the change in the Sabbath observation to Sunday.  The Greek theology seemed to be greatly disinterested in David and Abraham (and Melchizedek for that matter) since many Greeks (especially the Alexandrian school of thought) believed that such characters in the Old Testament were really physical types of a spiritual reality.  And since Trinitarianism dominated the theology of the 4th century, I find it unlikely that a Melchizedek forgery ever made it.

If it were a forgery, the forgery would have occurred within the first two centuries of Christianity's existence, when Judaism was still the primary opponent to Christianity.  That places it within Paul's time.  And I don't think Paul would have forged it, especially knowing the great opposition he faced from Jews in the synagogues and public forum and from close Jewish friends of his.  A Pharisee would not have been that careless with Scripture.  (They preferred to make up their own traditions, according to Josephus.)

Bluefinger, I have clearly explained in the thread that the originals in Hebrew do not mention  "According to the order of Melchizedek" but "By My decree." And by the way, Abraham did not tithe Melchizedek. He just shared with him a portion of the spoils in payment for his gracious welcome. Since Abraham was not of the kind to take things free he decided not to owe him any favor. There was absolutely no homage by Abraham toward Melchizedek. That payment meant nothing in terms of returning the tithe. The idea was many years later copied by the Levites as an inspiration to build the tithing system. That's all.


#26    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,564 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:33 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 09 July 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Well, what I have to say is that the more and more modern is a translation of the Bible made, the more are the temptations to fit in the religious preconceived notions of the translator. And when you show your preference for modern translations in spite of ancient ones, it only conveys that you don't care for the originals. Can you realize the danger here? As the Tanach is concerned I can never bring to you a testimony from the originals in Hebrews because you will reject it  on the basis of being too ancient. The Christian faction of "Messianic Judaism" is translating a super modern Bible where every reference to Jesus in their opinion is made to be a nominal reference. Imagine the boom that this method will cause in future generations that never had any contact with older translations?
And the fact that the translators are not all Christian makes no nevermind to you?  I don't accept a Bible simply because it's modern, but because of its accuracy in translation.  I don't hold myself to a single version, I read several, an then I have a copy of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text.  I can't fluidly read them (though I'm slightly better at Greek), but I have a dictionary of ancient words that I can look up a particular meaning of a word and understand it fully.  The modern texts make it clear what the meaning of the ancient documents are.  You knew these modern documents translated it as "faith in Jesus" (the ancient Greek just says "faith Jesus", and it's up to the translators to work out what goes in between), but chose not to mention it in your OP.  That, Mr Masada, is intellectual dishonestly, if you ask me - and you have a history of doing this very thing in order to promote your agenda.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 10 July 2013 - 07:29 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#27    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 10 July 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

And the fact that the translators are not all Christian makes no nevermind to you?  I don't accept a Bible simply because it's modern, but because of its accuracy in translation.  I don't hold myself to a single version, I read several, an then I have a copy of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text.  I can't fluidly read them (though I'm slightly better at Greek), but I have a dictionary of ancient words that I can look up a particular meaning of a word and understand it fully.  The modern texts make it clear what the meaning of the ancient documents are.  You knew these modern documents translated it as "faith in Jesus" (the ancient Greek just says "faith Jesus", and it's up to the translators to work out what goes in between), but chose not to mention it in your OP.  That, Mr Masada, is intellectual dishonestly, if you ask me - and you have a history of doing this very thing in order to promote your agenda.

As you say above, you do not accept a Bible simply because it is modern, but because of its accuracy in translation. This is not any better than not to accept old translations as you asserted in the previous post. But all the same, to accept a Bible based on its accuracy in translation, the accuracy must be evaluated according to your Christian pre-conceived notions. Can you see the reasoning point here?


#28    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,564 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:03 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 12 July 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

As you say above, you do not accept a Bible simply because it is modern, but because of its accuracy in translation. This is not any better than not to accept old translations as you asserted in the previous post. But all the same, to accept a Bible based on its accuracy in translation, the accuracy must be evaluated according to your Christian pre-conceived notions. Can you see the reasoning point here?
Yes, Revelation speaks extensively about Jesus' status as king and messiah, and yet you have chosen to pull out one verse in chapter 14 in an attempt to prove that Orthodox Judaism is correct and true.  The rest of Revelation is Hellenistic claptrap, but not this verse, this is the one true verse that managed to survive to refer to Jesus' Judaic walk of life - oh, and let's ignore other translations that are consistent with the rest of Revelation as referring to a person's faith in Jesus, that doesn't suit your agenda.

Am I close?

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#29    Bluefinger

Bluefinger

    I am a Christian, and I understand many don't like that. .

  • Member
  • 4,752 posts
  • Joined:02 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minot, ND

  • "You'll know them by their fruits."

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:16 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 09 July 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:



Bluefinger, I have clearly explained in the thread that the originals in Hebrew do not mention  "According to the order of Melchizedek" but "By My decree." And by the way, Abraham did not tithe Melchizedek. He just shared with him a portion of the spoils in payment for his gracious welcome. Since Abraham was not of the kind to take things free he decided not to owe him any favor. There was absolutely no homage by Abraham toward Melchizedek. That payment meant nothing in terms of returning the tithe. The idea was many years later copied by the Levites as an inspiration to build the tithing system. That's all.

I explained that Melchizedek meant rightful king.  Anyway, it's likely that the author of Hebrews wasn't quoting the Hebrew version, but more likely the Septuagint.

"The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec."  (Psalm 110:4)

Edited by Bluefinger, 14 July 2013 - 09:16 PM.

It is not enough to have a good mind.  The main thing is to use it well.     - Descartes

#30    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,420 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:15 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 06 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Jews kill only in self-defense. How about the millions of Jews killed throughout History by Christians by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least the Holocaust, was it in self-defense? The problem with you is that Jews are supposed to stand on the front side of the barrow and never on the trigger side. I am sorry to disappoint you.
I wasn't aware the US had a non-Jew-only military but thanks for playing "I've got a problem with you because once upon a time".   If everyone thought like you and acted out on their thoughts, we'll all be at each others' throats and the violence would never end.   I think the US, UK, Canada etc. helped win WWII which ended the Holocaust.   Germany should be paying us reparations, not us paying Jews who chose to move thousands of miles away so Europe could export their Jewish problem to the Middle East.  

My problem isn't with the Jews, but if that's the exhaustive list you want to make trouble about, it sounds like you have a problem with Europeans which is ironic considering what the population of Israel is today.  I highlight a Jewish ex-Marine named Adam Kokesh on a regular basis here.  You should check out my content more often.

And parroting Nazi propaganda about Christianity is your business of the day only you're a lot more persistent about it than they were.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users