Is bible a holy book?

[theist 1]

of agreement.

 

I posted this point on nephesh-chayas a response to one of those other threads you started on this topic. I use it to argue to Christians that animals have souls according to the Bible and nephesh-chaya has been mis-translated beginning with the King James version. My source is the Christian animal rights author Norm Phelps.

 

Unfortunately the hyper active Admin 5 then deleted the whole thread.

[anadi 0]

 

Are we to understand that Srila Narayana Maharaja has a plan to discredit the sciptures of the Jews and Christians?

 

 

 

Showing the truth about the way that so called scripture have been made, can be seen as discreditations of the impostors? No, it is a de-masking of the way such dogmas as "jesus is the only son of God", the ones that don't surrender to Jesus go for ever in hell"....etc have been made up by a sect which wants to impose their dogmas by any means:

 

"By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says:

Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly.

When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands.

After the death of Constantine, his policy was continued by his two sons. Every indulgence was shown to the illegal behavior of the Christians, every doubt explained to the disadvantage of the pagans, and the further demolition of the pagan temples was celebrated as one of the auspicious events of their reign. Having perceived the efficacy of Christian baptism in the case of their own father, they determined to force baptism upon even the unwilling. As Gibbon says:

 

The rites of baptism were conferred on women and children, who, for that purpose, had been torn from the arms of their friends and parents. The mouths of the communicants were held open by a wooden engine, while the consecrated bread was forced down their throats. (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)

But when Constantine's nephew, Julian, came to the throne, all of this was changed. Julian was a Neoplatonist, a pupil of Aedesius, who had in turn been taught by Iamblichus. Julian was initiated at Ephesus when he was only twenty years old, and later was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries.

When Julian came to power the whole Christian world was thrown into a state of perturbation. How would this Neoplatonist, this Initiate, act toward Christianity? Would he retaliate with some new and still more cruel refinement of death and torture? Julian answered these questions in a truly Christlike manner. He at once extended free and equal rights to all the inhabitants of the Empire, irrespective of their religious beliefs. He invited all those Christian Bishops who had been excommunicated and exiled on account of their unorthodox views, to return to their posts. At the same time he urged the pagan teachers who had been driven out of Alexandria by Constantine to return to their philosophical pursuits. He invited the opposing Christian factions to meet in his palace, where he advised them to give up their differences and try to live in concord. But at the same time he gave his pagan subjects permission to re-open their temples and continue their own form of worship. Because of this fair and impartial treatment of his subjects, Julian has come down in Christian history under the ignominious title of "the Apostate."

 

The knowledge that Julian had gained in his initiations made him a menace to orthodox Christianity. He was urged to make his knowledge public so that the Christian Church could refute his statements. To this Julian replied:

 

Were I to touch upon the initiation into the Sacred Mysteries respecting the "seven-rayed God" . . . I should say things unknown to the rabble, very unknown, but well known to the Blessed Theurgists."

 

source: THEOSOPHY, Vol. 25, No. 5, March, 1937

[theist 1]

 

You can continue to denigrate me, I'am used to it, but I'll fight your demoniac nature with all my power.

 

 

Yes this is necessary. First you must feel set upon by someone, demonize them, then the crusader spirit is justified in it's rising forth. It has its mission and will fight boldly against all odds for the truth.

 

It feels so much better to the ego to be a hero than just a sweeper in the street.

 

Eventually you will recognize the windmill for what it is and then lay your jousting stick down. Until then, "go get em' tiger."

 

[anadi 0]

persecution complex?

 

No, too much propagation of falsity. And you are the plague.

Look at the innocence of theist, the personification of the death of bhakti:

 

"Consulting guru is done every time we read a Prabhupada purport."

 

This is his understanding of

1. guru padashraya

2. guru diksha shiksha adi

and he is not alone, and he knows that, that is why he says we read!

 

No, he is not the "innocent", to whom you could preach something, he reads sastra in the company of ... others like him, and go to preach that one does not need a guru, than parampara does not mean to take diksa... . One does not go to preach untile he attains bhava... but one can assist the preaching of his guru devatatma, disksa and siksha guru and yuta! Does one know in which yuta he is?

Does one have a lillte glimpse of his sambhanda?

Does one chant with sambhanda?

 

Am I trampling this "innocence" that you praise, which is only the death of bhakti?

 

[theist 1]

 

Am I trampling this "innocence" that you praise, which is only the death of bhakti?

 

 

You may freely stamp, stomp, trample and grind into the ground that enemy you see before you. But not to spoil your needed release of tension, but your are forever missing me.

 

 

[theist 1]

Bhakti cannot die. It can only be impeded from flowing in a certain course at which time it simply curves and flows onward into a new channel.

 

Unless one receives direction from the Supersoul we will miss that change of course when it happens and find ourselves sitting by the dry riverbeds of ecclasticism and fanaticism.

 

The idea of sadhana bhakti is to become a proper and open channel one's self to receive that flow by removing the barriers to love of God that we have built around our own hearts.

 

This is what is meant by "being damned." We damn ourselves off from the flow of bhakti being afraid of Lord Caitanya's inundation.

 

So it is not bhakti that dies but rather our experience of it which is a "death" to the soul.

 

This is why we,the previously dead and buried, need to be reborn into transcendence and resurrected from our tombs.

 

Jaya Yeshua, Jaya Krsna

[anadi 0]

My "trampling" is only demasking your demoniac mentality.

Why demoniac?

Because

1.you say you don't need disksa guru

2.but guru is the No.1 priciple in bhakti

3. why?

<font color="blue"> Guru-CaraNa-Kamala Bhaja Mana

O Mind, Just Worship the Lotus Feet of SriGuru <font color="blue"> </font color>

 

Hindi song by Sri Srimad Bhaktivedänta NäräyäNa Mahäräja

 

guru-carana-kamala bhaja man

guru-kripä vinä nähi koi sädhana-bal,

bhaja man bhaja anuksan (1)

 

O mind, just worship the lotus feet of Gurudeva! Without Gurudeva's mercy we have

no strength in our sädhana. Therefore, O mind, worship and serve him at every

moment!

 

milatä nahï aisä durlabha janama,

bhramatahü caudaha bhuvana

kise ko milte haî aho bhägya se,

hari-bhakta ke darasan (2)

 

Without coming to Sri Guru in this rare human birth, we are simply wandering about

these fourteen planes! Oh, how fortunate we are to have come to him to get the

darsana of Sri Hari's devotee!

 

krishna-kripä ke änanda murti,

dina-jana karunä-nidän

bhakti bhäva prema tina prakäsata,

Sri guru patita pävan (3)

 

Sri Guru is the blissful embodiment of KRSNa's mercy and the reservoir of compassion

for the destitute souls. He enlightens us in bhakti, bhäva and prema and is the saviour

of the fallen!

 

Sruti smriti aur puränana mähî,

kino spasta pramän

tana-mana-jivana, guru-pade arpada,

Sri harinäma ratan (4)

 

All the Srutis, smritis and Puränas describe Sri Guru's glories. Offering my body, mind

and very life to the feet of Gurudeva I incessantly sing Sri harinäma!

 

See also Guru astakam, the first song you should sing every morning.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

He never says you not need Guru. Stop trampling on ppls faith.

[theist 1]

Thanks for understanding that simple point. anadi must have been carrying this resentment for a long time. Maybe its best if he just dumps it all out here and now. He'll feel better and perhaps regain his balance.

 

What's left anadi? Get it all out now.

[gHari 0]

Did Gurudeva ask you to write these articles here or not?

Will you offer this thread to Gurudeva when it is finished?

If so, "Hi, Srila Narayana Maharaja. I've heard good things. I'm afraid this approach will make them hate us and disrespect us as being necessarily demonic (by definition), no matter how nice our words are. But then you would know best. I would suggest that this forum here however is not the place to accomplish anything meaningful; it's mostly just ego massaging here and enforced shastra reading for us remedials. Live long and prosper. gHari"

 

[anadi 0]

It is the same old tactic, of changing the subject and trying to discredit the opponenet.

But you are continuing to emphsize "your nice words", and this is deceitfulness.

 

Just a previous example of the same tactic ,of sweet words, you applied in this thread, making some "general denigrating comments" so that we come as much as possible out of topic:

 

"You switched from the tactic of diverting from the subject to the denigration tactic, and your atacs are more virulent. I said one should be factual.

 

Than you change and you want to eat your hat, not because the bible as was assembled and translated and misinterpreted, might be proven a fraudulent work, but because I, "the opponent", I don't know what are the Christian teachings.

 

I tell you, in that way so that you don't eat your hat:

If you are baptised at the end of your life, and

you say that you belive in Jesus,

all your sins will be forgiven, and

you will go in heaven,

otherwise you will go for ever in hell.

Ask your local priest, if this is true of false.

Evindence for this here:

"The emperor Constantin was told that no pagan religion offered absolution for such crimes as his. He then turned to the Christian Church, (the sect of Paulus) and was informed that Christian baptism would expiate any crime, irrespective of its magnitude. At the same time he was advised that baptism might he deferred to the day of his death without losing any of its efficacy. Thus, Eusebius relates that,

 

When he thought that he was near his death, he confessed his sins, desiring pardon for them from God, and was baptized. So that Constantine was the first of all the Emperors to be regenerated by the new birth of baptism, and signed with the sign of the Cross. (Vita Constantin)."

 

[gHari 0]

If you are not serving guru, then why have a guru at all?

 

[anadi 0]

 

Did Gurudeva ask you to write these articles here or not?

Will you offer this thread to Gurudeva when it is finished?

 

 

 

Everybody according his capacity, should follow the order of gurudeva: Learn the slokas, read the books, increase your number of rounds, worship the Deity, and chant your gayatri mantras as I taught you, come and hear hari-katha from me, whenever you can, but better you come nach Vrindavan in kartika month, so that you get strength in your bhakti. Translate my books, distribute my books and preach, because when you do this, you preach first to yourself.

 

He also said that I should never start by teaching others.

First I should teach myself, that means to follow saranagati first, and upadesamrita, so I had to learn these first and make them my daily bread.

 

Following his orders means serving him.

I am not a sat shisya, but since I met Gurudeva, my life has changed substantially. At least some attachment for chanting more every day is the good sign ...I don't say more.

 

I cannot afford to waste so much time in this ...

[anadi 0]

Back to other frauds in translation which are even the corner stone of the pavelinic churchianism, known as (dogmatic ortodox) christianity.

 

"Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-type". So where does 'begotten' come from?

Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of a fraud in translation. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.

 

"Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word.

The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bar-dalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God" (which is the quality of sat-guru).

There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically (material body) divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such."

 

The idea of Son of God means that God made Jesus in Maria's womb, and Jesus is the only son of God, not coresponding the general idea that we are all sons of God, because we are all spiritual souls. The churchianic idea of Son of God is based on the material bodily conception of being.

 

"Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being".

Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man).

The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels.

It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day.

In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness."

For example barabba means "resembles his father".

Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".

 

source "...and the truth shall set you free" by David Icke

 

 

 

[theist 1]

There is a different viewpoint to only begotten son of God. When seen from the perspective of this universal creation Brahma can be called the only begotten son of God. Jesus is talked about in the same way in the Bible as Brahma.

 

Prabhupada:And in Bible it is said the man is made after God. So actually Brahmä is the son of Visnu, and Manu is the son of Brahmä, and we are also son of Manu in different aspect. So gradually, if you go up, God comes to be our original father. And we say also, God is the original father.

 

Some Vaisnava's I have heard accept Jesus Christ as an incarnation of Brahma, and Haridas Thakur as well. I wouldn't know personally but it is an interesting perspective.

[theist 1]

 

The Word Became Flesh

 

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

4In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

_____________

 

Clearly much of what is said here would pertain to Brahma.

 

[shambu 0]

If Jesus were an "incarnation of Brahma," then he should be worshipped as identical to the original source of Vedic knowledge of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaisnava-Sampradaya. Lord Jesus - the soundvibration of the Vedas in the flesh. Interesting perspective! Probably that's the reason why Prabhupada showed such a high degree of reverence towards him.

 

Without intending to either "ridicule" or "denigrate," but is there any more fantastic speculation on the subject of Jesus available?

 

Some devotees (Krsna-bhaktas in the above-named sampradaya) also say that the God of the Bible is actually Lord Brahma, not even Visnu, since His worshippers address Him as the Creator. There are so many theories and speculations. Actually this sounds even more reasonable to me than Jesus being Brahma...sorry.

[Guest guest]

The god of the bible is constantine, and later, king james.

 

The father of Lord Jesus is the Supreme Lord, Narayana, perhaps of lesser qualities than Sri Govinda, but the Supreme Lord nonetheless.

 

The bible is not a book, its not even very authoritative, and the new testament is a creation of religion by Paul, not necessarily the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Individual books, some inclyuded in the canon, some excluded from the canon, have descriptions of the supreme lord. Some have descriptions of tribal gods, who are great personalities, but far from supreme, especially when described as having anger consuming him.

 

Lord Brahma had anger, once, but Lord Siva cured Him from anger forever.

 

But the bible is not where Lord Jesus hides. As empowered representative of the supreme lord (who he is, who he says he is), he is guru, therefore, present in ones heart.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

We know that Haridas Thakur was an incarnation of Brahma. We know from the above quotation that the New testament saw Him as the one these worlds were created by and through. (visarga) We know that the only person that describes is Brahma the only begotten son of Visnu.(as seen from this Jagat)

 

I don't try to establish the point as it's not my place to establish anything although I tend to accept it. I have also noticed some striking similarities between the pastimes of Jesus Christ and Haridas Thakur. Some are, birth in families outside of hindu. (I am not sure if Haridas was of semitic birth or there had just been a change in religious affiliation in that line previously.

 

Both were the objects of plots by the religious leaders and the state officals because of their preaching.

 

I am not sure if the Aquarian Gospel is authorized or not even though Prabhupada quoted out of it. he also said it was good for his preaching. Anyway according to that text Christ lived in temple Jagannatha for four years but had to leave because he called the priests on their failings. They wanted to kill him. Haridas also didn't enter back in. Remember we are just speculating along having fun with some ideas and not trying to write anything in stone.

 

They were both publically scourged. Christ gave up his life on the cross willingly and prayed "Father forgive them they know not what they do" as he hung there.Prabhupada often refers to that. Haridas agreed to give up his life as an act of mercy to those who were beating him so they would not themselves be killed.

 

They both showed resurrection pastimes.

 

They both showed celebrated temptation pastimes. Christ while fasting and praying in the dessert, Haridas while doing his japa in a cave or hut.

 

There may be more that I can't remember. I find it interesting. But I avoid trying to hard to mix their pastimes. Even if it is the same person I will accept them as they presented themselves.

[Guest guest]

"...Remember we are just speculating along having fun with some ideas..."

 

Herein lies one major blockage re. surrendering to bhakti. Speculation is one thing, but enjoying it quite another.

[theist 1]

Yeah i like to have fun. i like to laugh and feel the Sun on my face too. I like to have fun in a lot of simple ordinary ways. telling stories to children and making them laugh is fun. Chanting Hare Krishna is fun. thinking about this philosophy is fun.

 

Being anal retentive and thinking it is the mature staunch position is not fun.

 

This process is joyfully performed.-Gita

[Guest guest]

"This process is joyfully performed.-Gita"

 

Uh, that would be devotional service, bro, not "mental speculation". So how's your local temple [berkely, CA] doing these days, while you're having all that "fun"?

[theist 1]

What a group of caustic oppressive people. The fun I described is just basic human experience. Do you think you are somehow more spiritual attuned by negating these things?

 

You are mayavadis. Oppressive relionists.

 

Thinking about the things of God should be pleasurable to the mind. Mental speculation is thinking that simply by your thinking you will capture the truth. That doesn't mean you can't look to the stars and just wonder at it all and even take pleasure in your own smallness and God's greatness.

 

Without thinking and wondering about these things how does one formulate questions of relevance to place before the teacher?

 

Robot minds. What do you do when your batteries run out?

 

As for the Berkely temple you will have to ask them how they are doing. i haven't attended a program since last Janmastami. I see some of them on sankirtana and selling books so I assume they are doing quite nicely.

[anadi 0]

The fraud about "The Revelation of John" (1)

 

Apocalypses were written by Jews in uncertain times to buttress faith. The genre is a recounting of past tribulations, a prophecy of worse to come and an assurance of ultimate victory and reward with proper punishment for former oppressors. Examples are Isaiah 24-27; Ezekiel 38-39; Dan 2:7-11; Zechariah 12-14; Mark 13 (Mt 24-25). Christians were fond of the apocalyptic type of writing when they were from time to time persecuted by Romans but it is accepted that Christians did not write their own. They read and adapted Jewish apocalypses like the scriptural examples and the Ascension of Isaiah and 4 Ezra. Revelation is the main apocalypse of the New Testament and might be thought to be a Christian work. It is, only in the sense that it is edited by Christians, but the bulk of the content is from earlier Jewish sources.

We now recognize that Apocalyptic was a particular interest of some of the Jewish sects from the Maccabees to the Jewish War. The main among these were the Essenes. If there ever was a fashion among the Pharisees for Apocalyptic, it was expunged after the Jewish wars of 70 AD and 132 AD when Judaism was badly battered as a result of apocalyptic fancies. These were large scale conflicts but we know from Josephus and the Books of the Maccabees that Palestine was a rebellious place for about 300 years. Did lesser incidents arise out of the apocalyptic notions of the Jews before their final abandonment of this way of thinking?

Historically, rather than theologically, the myth of Jesus is most convincingly explained from this historical fact of apocalyptic fervour among some Jews in the first century. Jesus obviously thought the end of the world was due and that it was his duty to help defeat the cosmic forces of evil by defeating them here on earth. The forces of evil to most Jews at the time were their idolatrous Roman oppressors and the Jews who collaborated with them. As an Essene Jesus believed that the time of the End had arrived and he had to act to demonstrate to God that Israel was not apostate by accepting foreign rule. He led a band of his followers called Nazarenes in an attack on Jerusalem and, probably with the help of many pilgrims attending the temple at Passover, he succeeded in defeating the Roman garrison of Jerusalem.

Naturally, Christians, who are not interested in history unless it supports their beliefs, reject all this, but the Revelation of John is valuable evidence in this argument. It is the best source we have of the beliefs of Jesus himself, once the fairly obvious Christian alterations are discarded, and some of those Christian changes actually confirm that a victory was won.

Again Christians will concur but claim the victory was the spiritual victory of perfect goodness in the form of God incarnate over mankind's wickedness, represented mainly by the believers in the same God as the Christians, earlier chosen by God as His people—the Jews. Yet no one who reads Revelation could pretend that it is other than extremely violent and unforgiving. It is retained because Christians have never wanted or supported theological clarity.

Christian priests and parents can scare their charges into submission, while generally pretending that their god is purely love.

Nevertheless, the Apocalypse got into Christian tradition somehow, and the historical explanation is that it is how the Christians originally thought.

 

If Christianity began with an apocalyptic Jewish sect, it would hardly be surprising that it had an eschatological tradition and mythology behind it. The Jewish sect was the Essenes, who saw themselves as prophets because they were forever watching for signs of the end of the world. The author of this book sees it as prophecy and no less a person than Paul the apostles declared that prophecy was one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation is still not too logical and many a scholar has suggested that bits have been misplaced but, since the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found revealing the sectarian literature of the Essenes, it is plain that the original apocalypse is very like some of the literature in the scrolls, notably the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll and some of the imagery in the hymns.

 

Though it is given the name of John, the apostle who supposedly composed the fourth gospel, it is written in Greek described by scholars as barbaric. The author of John's gospel had a limited Greek vocabulary but wrote what he wrote in a didactic style that shines through the translations, and is manifestly quite different from the style of this apocalypse. Similar phrases in both books here and there do not serve to prove a connexion. Christians quite deliberately used the New Testament just as Jews used the Old Testament, and all these parallels show, is that some of the editors had gospels before them..

In parts the author displays some subtlety of Greek grammar, showing that editors have been at work. There are some links with the fourth gospel notably the use of the title, Logos. Rather than proof of the author's identity, this more likely shows a fashion in the milieu that both books were written—probably some eastern church.

 

Source:

AskWhy! Publications Selwyn 41 The Butts Frome BA 11 4AB UK

[anadi 0]

Another fraud, the "Revelation of John"

 

Nr.2

 

 

Revelation is in several parts but two main ones can be distinguished by any reader—the division between what seem to be letters to seven churches and the rest of the book that is largely a description of the end of the world. If the seven epistles and the epilogue are removed, and fairly obvious cosmetic additions made by Christians—such as adding references to Jesus alongside or instead of references to God—are also removed, the result is a barely unadulterated Jewish apocalypse. Sometimes we read of the uniformity of the tone of the book, but the main division at Chapter 4 is plain to see, uniform tone or not. Such a notable scholar as Harnack vouched for this.

Modern Christian scholars do not deny that the author drew on Jewish sources to compose the work, but claim that the Christian content was too deeply integrated to be merely editorial. However, this becomes much less convincing if it is accepted that Christianity evolved from the Essene sect and did not emerge fully formed with the birth or baptism of Jesus. The Christian oriented choice of scriptural allusion that Christians see as so intimately woven into the fabric of Revelation as to be inextricable was there originally but was Essene not Christian.

A peculiarity of the book is the number of Old Testament allusions in it—about 300 in 400 verses. Christians might not think this is odd, but for a book that is stylistically so early, it shows it was written for a Jewish audience. The first gentile Christians would mostly have known nothing about the Jewish scriptures, and Mark's gospel, for example, eschewed such references. The growth of Christianity created the gentile interest in the Septuagint until scriptural references could be understood. Conceivably a book newly written about 100 AD for a learned audience might have been replete with scriptural references, but the style and poor grammar prove that was not the case. It therefore was a book written for Jews by Jews.

 

The point is that the original authors of Revelation believed that the Eschaton, the End of Time, would be "soon"—then! Their successors realised they were wrong and made some alterations that appear particularly towards the end of the book, to push the Eschaton much later in time. Unfortunately all subsequent Christians have done the same. A prophetic industry has been created in which interpretations of Revelation as supposedly "current" are made every generation.

The visions in Revelation are all aspects of the Essene theory of the End Time. Satan is imprisoned and ultimated is tortured for eternity but refuses to be converted. The wicked city, Rome, falls unrepentent. Nevertheless, Christian commentators say, the work is not dualistic because evil is routed. The same commentators say that Mazdayasnism is dualistic even though the outcome is the same! They lie, they insist on believing, contrary to all evidence and common sense, that Christianity was "revealed" once and for all and without any parents.

Some commentators do not want to consider that a Christian editor has simply changed the original Essenes text , changing Yehouah or some aspect of Him into Jesus and the lamb. Where this substitution has not occurred, the "lamb" has been simply added to "God." Jesus and the Essenes expected Yehouah or his heavenly lieutenant, the angel Michael, to arrive with the hosts of heaven. Michael was however identified with the Messiah and when Jesus was thought to have been the Messiah, but yet no hosts of heaven had arrived, they claimed he would return as Michael at the head of the hosts. The idea of the Christian Parousia was born out of God's miracle at the End.

The main testament to the non-Christianity of Revelation is its partisanship—it makes no attempt at universality except in parts that are plainly later, Christian additions. The author declares he is a member of a brotherhood and writes for his brethren.

The emperor worship mentioned in Revelation 13:15 places the work in the time of Domitian, Christians say. Domitian was the first emperor to use the title Lord and God. But emperors from Augustus were claiming divinity under different titles as a way of obtaining loyalty. It was a device akin to having American schoolchildren swearing allegiance to the US flag.

Pliny tells us that Christianity was persecuted throughout the empire under Domitian, whereas the earlier persecution under Nero had only been local to Rome. No one considers that the work refers to persecution of the Essenes and light editing was undertaken to make the earlier work topical at the end of the century. In Revelation 11:1-2 the reference to the temple implies that the work is pre-Christian and written before the Jewish War of 70 AD.

S H Travis in Christian Hope and the Future of Man sees "parallels in Parseeism (Zoroastrianism) to several doctrines of Jewish apocalyptic—dualism, universalism and individualism, resurrection of the dead, structured course of history, infuence of evil in the good world and eschatological victory of the good."

Jewish apocalyptic was pessimistic, expected an immediate end and denied that all men would be saved!

 

Source:

AskWhy! Publications Selwyn 41 The Butts Frome BA 11 4AB UK

 

Any apocalyptic is pessimistic for the wicked because they get punished with the everlasting hell, which implies

- the spiritual world , which is eternal entails an eternal suffering condition, contradicting the nature of that world which is pure bliss and love

- the law of karma is transferred in the spiritual world.

- The Lord is unjust because for temporary wrong doings and mistakes of the conditioned soul, the soul is punished with an eternal suffering

- The mercy of the Lord is not unlimited and He is not all love.