Revelations: Truths Revealed

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

i think the idea of one God goes back further than moses.

It most likely does, however, what my point is; it was Moses who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and, it this was the same Religion that Jesus was a part of many years later. Without one there isn't another.

Thanks to Christ, that little Slave religion that was persecuted immensely during the Hellenization of the world 2500-2000 yrs ago, is now the central idea in all of the major religions that dominate the world today.

That's what I'm talking about with this...

THE ROMAN ARMY’S SECRET CHRISTIANS
www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=117598

and this...

Pax Romana
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

and this....

Court Jew
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_Jew

From early medieval times, Jewish financiers could amass personal fortunes and gain political and social influence. However, the court Jew had social connections and influence in the Christian world mainly through the Christian nobility and church. Due to the precarious position of Jews, some nobles could ignore their debts. If the sponsoring noble died, his Jewish financier could face exile or execution.

A famous example of this process occurred in the 1100s, after the death of Aaron of Lincoln (1125–1186), who had been wealthiest man of 12th century Britain, his wealth exceeding even the King's.[4] After his death, King Henry II requisitioned Aaron's assets over a number of decades, setting up a court for the purpose known as "Aaron's Exchequer". According to the Gervase of Canterbury, the 'Saladin tithe' of 1188 had estimated that the Jewish community of England, numbering significantly less than 1% of the population or less than 3000 people,[5] owned some 30% of the country's wealth; however, within just over a century, the entire Jewish community had been massacred or expelled.

[ktunes]

It most likely does, however, what my point is; it was Moses who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and, it this was the same Religion that Jesus was a part of many years later. Without one there isn't another.

understood...the point i was making is that moses was the human instrument that God used to bring His people out of egypt...God's way of thinking on "religion" were the same before creation, at creation and after creation, to this day...how humans interpret it is another matter entirely...

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Gotcha, sorry it takes a few days to get back at some of your responses ktunes, I have three kids and lots going on... ;D

I think that "religion" has always been the way that humans interpret what god is trying to tell us. Occam's razor is the idea of taking everything away and seeing what your left with. The glaring theme that I see, is FREEDOM! I have a good post for the Exodus thread that I will post tomorrow, you might find it interesting.

This however, fits right in with the theory we are talking about on this thread..

4 big myths of Book of Revelation
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/31/four-big-myths-about-the-book-of-revelation/comment-page-113/

Elaine Pagels, one of the world’s leading biblical scholars, first read Revelation as a teenager. She read it again in writing her latest book, “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation.”


1. It’s about the end of the world

Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end.

Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended.

She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos in present-day Turkey.........

.........................The author of Revelation had experienced a catastrophe. He wrote his book not long after 60,000 Roman soldiers had stormed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., burned down its great temple and left the city in ruins after putting down an armed Jewish revolt.

For some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was incomprehensible. They had expected Jesus to return “with power” and conquer Rome before inaugurating a new age. But Rome had conquered Jesus’ homeland instead.

The author of Revelation was trying to encourage the followers of Jesus at a time when their world seemed doomed. Think of the Winston Churchill radio broadcasts delivered to the British during the darkest days of World War II.

Revelation was an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.

“His primary target is Rome,” Pagels says of the book’s author. “He really is deeply angry and grieved at the Jewish war and what happened to his people.”

2. The numerals 666 stand for the devil.......

.............................Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation didn’t really intend 666 as the devil’s digits. He was describing another incarnation of evil: The Roman emperor, Nero.

The arrogant and demented Nero was particularly despised by the earliest followers of Jesus, including the writer of Revelation. Nero was said to have burned followers of Jesus alive to illuminate his garden.

But the author of Revelation couldn’t safely name Nero, so he used the Jewish numerology system to spell out Nero’s imperial name, Pagels says.

Pagels says that John may have had in mind other meanings for the mark of the beast: the imperial stamp Romans used on official documents, tattoos authorizing people to engage in Roman business, or the images of Roman emperors on stamps and coins........

Since Revelation’s author writes in “the language of dreams and nightmares,” Pagels says it’s easy for outsiders to misconstrue the book’s original meaning.

Still, they take heart from Revelation’s larger message, she writes:

“…Countless people for thousands of years have been able to see their own conflicts, fears, and hopes reflected in his prophecies. And because he speaks from his convictions about divine justice, many readers have found reassurance in his conviction that there is meaning in history – even when he does not say exactly what that meaning is – and that there is hope.”

3. The writer of Revelation was a Christian

There’s a common perception that there was a golden age of Christianity, when most Christians agreed on an uncontaminated version of the faith. Yet there was never one agreed-upon Christianity. There were always clashing visions.

Revelation reflects some of those early clashes in the church, Pagels says.

That idea isn’t new territory for Pagels. She won the National Book Award for “The Gnostic Gospels,” a 1979 book that examined a cache of newly discovered “secret” gospels of Jesus. The book, along with other work from Pagels, argues that there were other accounts of Jesus’ life that were suppressed by early church leaders because it didn’t fit with their agenda..................

....................The author of Revelation was like an activist crusading for traditional values. In his case, he was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the messiah. But he didn’t like the message that the apostle Paul and other followers of Jesus were preaching.

This new message insisted that gentiles could become followers of Jesus without adopting the requirements of the Torah............

.................That was too much for the author of Revelation.......

4. There is only one Book of Revelation

There’s no other book in the Bible quite like Revelation, but there are plenty of books like Revelation that didn’t make it into the Bible, Pagels says.

Early church leaders suppressed an “astonishing” range of books that claimed to be revelations from apostles such as Peter and James. Many of these books were read and treasured by Christians throughout the Roman Empire, she says.......

...............Pagels traces that decision largely to Bishop Athanasius, a pugnacious church leader who championed Revelation about 360 years after the death of Jesus.

Athanasius was so fiery that during his 46 years as bishop he was deposed and exiled five times. He was primarily responsible for shaping the New Testament while excluding books he labeled as hearsay, Pagels says.

Many church leaders opposed including Revelation in the New Testament. Athanasius’s predecessor said the book was “unintelligible, irrational and false.”

Athanasius, though, saw Revelation as a useful political tool. He transformed it into an attack ad against Christians who questioned him.

Rome was no longer the enemy; those who questioned church authority were the anti-Christs in Athanasius’s reading of Revelation, Pagels says......

................“Athanasius interprets Revelation’s cosmic war as a vivid picture of his own crusade against heretics and reads John’s visions as a sharp warning to Christian dissidents,” she writes. “God is about to divide the saved from the damned – which now means dividing the ‘orthodox’ from ‘heretics.’ ’’

Centuries later, Revelation still divides people. Pagels calls it the strangest and most controversial book in the Bible.

Even after writing a book about it, Pagels has hardly mastered its meaning.

“The book is the hardest one in the Bible to understand,” Pagels says. “I don’t think anyone completely understands it.”

The Book of Revelations might not be fully understood, but the time-line of the Messiah life is coming to light more and more all the time.

• Evidence that the Pagan and Abrahamic religions were being merged as early as 30 AD showing up in secret caves in Israel.
  
• JC came from a line of Hellenistic Jews that knew the Romans stole the Greeks Religion.
  
• By looking at current times, we see just how BIG of an idea it was that GOD gave Jesus.
  

[mrsdutt]

Mar 11, 2012 3:04:02 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Did not Jesus himself say "no one but my Father knows when the time is suppose to be". So then how is it possible for anyone to predict when only the Father knows ?

[trevorw2539]

No one does know, and is not meant too.

Revelations is a book that has so many potential meanings it is better to read, without trying to study it. Pagels gives several reasons for Revelations, but that just proves that it is open to interpretation.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Exactly, that's why I say act accordingly. Provide for your Grandchildren's, grandchildren, thank JC and praise God!

[Deleted]

I guess I'd love God to download the revelation of The Book Of The Revelations to me.. Above that though, I am more concerned when a lot of the events during tribulation will take place.. Not necessarily the dates, but in what order will the hard to understand, for the most part all the happenings will happen.. -Before or after, the catching away (rapture) of the church.. I won't even give a smidgen of what I think.. I do see&read the first few chapters speaking to the churches with warnings of what is to be eliminated before God makes His moves..

There is a wrath of God the believer will not experience according to the word of God, so that tells me in essence there will be some body's left behind (those not included in the catching away [rapture]).. I do not and will not be counted amongst those left behind and certainly do not want to be one who is forced to admit Jesus is Lord on bending knees at his appearance... All because I didn't believe him Lord before He arrived and have to endure the aftermath of what's to come.. So, I say so now and forever.. Jesus is Lord. But that's just me.

It is dangerous happenings when unbelief fall into the hands of God..

[mrsdutt]

Disclaimer: My thoughts come from my spirit. I am not an intellectual.

My thought is we may be mis understanding (even though it's popular thought) the Book of Revelations. Just think about all those before Jesus walked the earth. Think of what they were expecting. Then remember the meek King that appeared. In their wildest dreams people couldn't have predicted what Jesus would be like. Some still don't get what God meant when He called the Redeemer 'King'.

Ask yourself: Is it possible that we are currently going through what the Book talks about? Could all the writer saw be going on right now - in the spiritual realm?

I pray for the world every morning. Please consider this as well, if you haven't thought of it before.
We are in the Age of Mercy. What follows is the judgment. Please pray as much as you can for the world.

Just one more thought. God does not want His people to be afraid all the time. He wants us to love one another and that's all He's asking. Everything else falls into place.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I'll be honest, I didn't read Trevors comments from last Oct until a couple days back..... Just for a quick reference...

Oct 9, 2012 5:43:49 GMT -5 trevorw2539 said:

You are shaping your view of the past on present events. The way of 'Second Coming' theorists who claim current events are proof of 'vague' prophecies coming true.

However, as you say I am free to believe as I will, and so are you. Good Luck.

 In light of this, it seemed like a perfect time to bring up the fact that I think the Book of Revelations has already come to pass.  I think JC is back and as strong as ever, and his warning was to the Romans, which he took by storm.... I think that people that use the Book of revelations now to shape their views are mostly talking biblical non sense, just like the preacher in the first post of this tread.  And as I have said before what I think is coming is the Messianic age.


Blowing out others candles never works Trevor, letting the past shape your views of the present is what we call looking at time as it happened.  What most do is try and skew their version of the past so that certain things couldn't have happened.  Like trying to claim the British Empire that gave the Zionist the mandate of Palestine, wasn't a Christian Empire because it consisted of a few client states that weren't Christian. I don't know it you will read this T, or if someone that knows you will, but I hope you get the message that trying to discredit the TRUTH is not going to happen.  Good luck to you wherever you are.. 

Good Sabbath. 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

A very interesting study to read...Book of Daniel Prophecy: End of Days Bible Study of the Prophet Daniel

...and to follow up..... The Messianic Age and Messiah in Judaism

Again, good Sabbath.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Gotta luv going back in time, especially because this comes from Forbes..

Obama and Ahmadinejad

Is Barack Obama the “promised warrior” coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean “the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means “he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

( Amazing isn't it? But since the Muslims follow a false Messiah, maybe their "Hadith's" are just a bit off.)

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama’s position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a “systematic violator of human rights.”

( Prez Obama has in fact applied more pressure and has forced Iran to take a more moderate approach.)

Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is “a state sponsor of terrorism.” Instead, he uses the term “violent groups” to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

( Right now Iran, Hezbollah and Syria are backed into corner fighting a growing sectarian war that is bringing on the collapse of Islam world wide. I wonder if the "mullahs" like that?)

Obama’s election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad’s entourage claim that his “steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan” was a factor in helping Obama defeat “hardliners” such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

“President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson,” says Hassan Abbasi, a “strategic adviser” to the Iranian president. “This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran’s power.” The Iranian leader’s entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan “Yes, We Can” from Ahmadinejad’s “We Can,” used four years ago.

(While Ahmadinejad did win a second term, he failed to work with Obama, brought harsher sanctions on Iran crippling it economically causing social unrest, and was subsequently forced out of power by the Ayatollah...

A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an “enemy of Islam.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama “a better choice for everyone.” Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic “prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House” next year.

Tehran’s penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

(Again, the sanctions were intensified.)

Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a “sunset” (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a “sunrise” (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America–attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

Seen from Tehran, Obama’s election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

(While some might consider Iraq and Afghanistan US loses, the last thing that is happening right now is an Islamic Republic hegemony. Syria is in ruins and it's spilling into Lebanon with no end in sight because the Saudi's have officially declared they are going to fund the Syrian "opposition".)

During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show “understanding of Muslim grievances” with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the “Iranian solution for Palestine,” which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

(Amazing eh? The PEOPLE did get PO at the Ayatollah and it wasn't because Prez Obama was sympathetic to the Muslim cause. While his administration has worked on the Israel deal, I wonder how the "world without America" crew is liking the Sino-American military strategy that is unfolding in the region?)

Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.

To sum it up, it's impossible to ignore that; "According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

I mean lets face it, the US is by far the strongest military on earth, and there is a perfect match between names even though the script comes from the 17th century. However, since what has happened since '08 has actually played into a long term US benefit, it's safe to say that Moe is NOT the one true profit of God.

Thanks JC.