he's gonna kill me in the end

This is actually a troubling statement...something a fallen angel would say.

Are you a demon?

He could, and if he ever presented a Bible, I'm sure it would be. But men put the Bible together, of the writings of men, and they disagreed over its contents - and still do. The different strains of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism have different collections of books in their Bibles. And there are three primary, differing, strains of ancient manuscripts, and no two of them are the same.

And there was no Bible at all until the religion was legalized circa 325 AD. So the very first Bibles date from around 350, a long, long time after Jesus.

God didn't make the Bible, men did. And they still don't agree as to its contents. There are multiple Bibles. based on multiple different manuscript traditions.

And of course Muslims say exactly the same thing about the Koran...and they'll kill you for saying about the Koran what I just said about the Bible.

Are you a demon?

Sure.

Vic: He could, and if he ever presented a Bible, I'm sure it would be. But men put the Bible together, of the writings of men

God: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Vic: And there was no Bible at all until the religion was legalized circa 325 AD

Wrong...the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was complete by the time of Christ. The NT Bible (in the form of letters) was written, circulated, and recognized as the Word of God long before Athanasius merely compiled the canonized letters.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized"

Vic: There are multiple Bibles.

Wrong. There many translations of the original manuscripts, which are derived from the original autographs (which no longer exist).

You really don't know much about Christianity, do you Vic?

All I see is a rebellious heathen raging about this or that...finding any excuse to deny God.

Lucifer in the Garden to Eve: "Did God really say that?"

Vic on the forum to anyone dumb enough to listen: "Did God really say that?"

You speak just like your father the devil. You don't wish to be with God in eternity, so you will go to be with the one you choose. Next stop for you...the Lake of Fire. You can change your heart and mind before it's too late but I doubt you will. You've hardened your heart as in the rebellion

Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Stupid really. Choosing to miss out on heaven.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

God didn't make the Bible, men did.

So men created God. Ok

You call the Bible God? The Bible is your God. God is God. Men created the Bible. Obviously.

Which Bible is God? They are all different you know. The Catholic Bible differs from the Orthodox Bible. The Orthodox Bibles differ from one another. The Protestant Bibles differ from the Catholics and the Orthodox, and from each other, depending on which manuscript source they use as their base.

So, multiple Gods? Or the Truth: the Bible is not God. God is God.

There's no denial of God in anything I write.

In fact, I focus very explicitly upon the words of Christ.

This clearly annoys you, probably because you think you have some sort of monopoly over God. If you don't think that, you sure talk that way.

Anyway, enough of this.

I'm going back to work, and later in the day I will continue by slow plod through the Gospels and Revelation (the only places in the Bible where Jesus himself speaks, other than a single line of Paul regarding the eucharist), picking out the words of Jesus and laying them back to back to make a point.

The point I am making is to someone else, but you, of course, are free to look at the evidence yourself.

I focus very explicitly upon the words of Christ.

through the Gospels and Revelation (the only places in the Bible where Jesus himself speaks

But you just got done saying "Men created the Bible".

The "words of Christ" you "focus on"...are they not found in the Bible?

Didn't man merely create the words of Christ too?

You constantly contradict yourself.

Why don't you just admit it...you do not believe in the God of the Bible.

You believe in your interpretation of God, who is someone/something you can control.

Men did create the Bible, and every other written thing. Words do not hang on the air. If we know them and did not hear them ourselves, it is only because men recorded them. The only way to record them before the latter half of the 19th Century was to write them down.

So, the only way to know what Christ said is to read it in a book men wrote? Are the quotes accurate? Made up? A bit of both? There is no way to tell that. We have wag at those men at that time recorded, and we use that as the basis to analyze what Christ, or Thomas Acquinas, or Shakespeare, or Caesar said.

There is nothing remotely contradictory in anything I have said on this matter. You need to go look up “contradictory” and read the definition again.

I can read the Koran too, and see what Allah is said to have said, and analyze that. Do I think that is actually the will of God? Not mostly, no. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

When it comes to Jesus, I have very great respect for what he said, in part because I agree with it. I think he was the son of God, somehow, but that assertion is just a bald one to me. So what? Even if he was, that’s useless information unless we know what he SAID. That is what we can evaluate. When I evaluate what Jesus said, it is quite remarkable. Did Jesus say some of that? Almost certainly yes. Did he say every word of it? I don’t know. But nothing about what he says seems very contradictory to me, and it’s excellent, so I am willing to listen to HIM and think that if by listening to anybody I can act in accordance with the will of God, that this is it. Now, I note clear contradictions between Jesus and Paul, Jesus and James, and Jesus and John, so I have to make a choice. My choice is to come down on the side of Jesus 100% of the time. You will say they don’t conflict. I see how they do, and side with Jesus. And that’s all there is to be said here.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1cor2.12-14

You are a "natural" man, that is, without the indwelling Holy Spirit. You cannot understand what God is saying in His Word...it is foolishness to you...so you toss out the parts that don't make sense.

Does it annoy me, as you say? No, it grieves me, and it grieves Stone and others.

I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus. Example: You shall not suffer a witch to live. Or “You shall take the daughter of the priest who fornicates and put her into the fire. Or If you have broken any law, you have broken them all. Or.. Kill the sabbath breaker. Or Women shall not teach in the Church Etc.

I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus.

Edit: These verses about burning witches, etc. are foolishness to you, but not to me.

No matter how hard I work to explain it to you, your mind refuses to accept the explanation. After you are born again you will understand what God did in the OT, and what He is doing in the NT.

so basically you're saying you dont have faith that the Bible is the word of God.

surplus

you are mistaken

www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023 -10-02/pentagon-congress-ukraine-war- funding-11569941.html

I am saying that the words of Jesus stand supreme, because he was the Son of God, and he said to follow him. He did not say to follow the Bible, and he did not leave a Bible. That didn’t come to be until the 300s. There were no Christian Scripture when Paul wrote, for example. There were none until decades after Jesus. What Jesus said and did is recorded in the Scriptures, yes. And what he said is supreme over everything else for, as the Scriptures tell you, HE was the begotten son of God, HE was the divine one, HE knew what was what. So therefore, I focus on him. The Scripture say to stone the woman found in adultery, but HE said “Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Scriptures say “eat no pork nor shellfish”, but HE said that nothing that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean, only that which come out of it. The Scripture says to kill the sabbath breaker who so much as gathers firewood, but HE said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; and that it is right to heal on the sabbath, to do good.. The Scripture (James) says that if you break one law, you’ve broken them all, but Jesus always speaks of greater and lesser sins. The Bible had at least 95 authors, each with a different viewpoint in a different age. But Jesus was one man, recorded in five different texts, largely consistent between them. What Jesus says is very distinctive, and often different from what other people in the Bible said. And Jesus was very self-consciously the son of God, and said so. The Bible can take you myriad ways, but Jesus takes you in a very distintive direction. Example: Paul says to not let women teach, but Jesus had the woman at the well teach her whole people. Where other parts of the Bible go in different directions, you correct all of that to Jesus. So, within the Bible itself, Jesus is above the rest of it. And that means that no, you can’t burn witches, even though another part of the Bible orders you to.

I am at page 80 of 180, still moving through methodically and taking notes for you. It will be several days before I am done. Then I will send it to you.

"There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace."

Wow...I am impressed. Very enlightened response, V13...MUD

Yeah. But obviously the conversation continued.

I have decided that all I can do to state my faith is what I have promised to Stone: systematically go through Jesus, and lay end-to-end the things HE said, because HE is the son of God.

Everything else ends up being "Jesus PLUS", and in my experience, everything that's "Jesus PLUS" ends up being Minus Jesus. And the only person in that whole Biblical milieu I'm willing to listen to is Jesus. The trouble with Moses, Ezra, etc., is that they're pronouncing death and exclusion. And the trouble with Paul, James and John is that what they say contradicts Jesus, and always, inevitably, in a way that I disagree with. I'm aligned with Jesus, and when somebody says something different from Jesus, that difference is invariably worse, in my experience. So I just stick with him.

This makes sense, given that he's God.

But many people have replaced Jesus with the Bible, making the Bible God.

Jesus did not say to do that. He said "Follow ME", and he didn't leave a Bible.

So, when I see Jesus excoriating the Jews time and again for their traditions that completely close off what Jesus was saying, I see Christians and their Bible doing exactly the same thing. And I am unimpressed with this. I am also unimpressed with how mean and carping they are about it.

the Bible ain't God. God is God. Now, what God said is IN the Bible, in the mouth of Jesus. Follow THAT. But the Bible ALSO contains things out of other people's mouths, that contradict Jesus.

Don't follow that.

This makes some people accuse me of being a demon.

I would say that they are tradition-mongering Pharisees, and the Bible is their tradition.

Obviously we are never going to see eye to eye, just as most of the Jews never saw eye to eye with Jesus (and the ones who did, stopped being Jews in time and became Christians). But the Christians, in later ages, erected their OWN traditions that replace Jesus, and did various terrible things like murdering people.

I have no patience for any of that.

And I have only limited patience for the cheerleaders of that, which is precisely what Christian tradition-mongers are.

Just shut up and follow Christ, and all will be well. Is that so hard? Why do people work so hard to follow everybody BUT Christ? The answer is that Christ demands things of people they don't want to do, while the others present a way of thinking and being that is easier, lets them feel holy, without actually DOING what Jesus said to do.

It's "Christian", but it ain't following Jesus.

I stick with Jesus, and I see the tempests of anger that raises.

And I provoke them - just like he did.

But I need to get through the Scriptures and present Jesus, Just Jesus. And let the storm wail away after that - I won't care!

no rush. take your time

blah, blah, blah

V13

13 is the number of rebellion in the Bible.

"Biblically, the number 13 is also believed to be associated with lawlessness and rebellion. This symbolism associated with this number dates as far back as the Book of Genesis, where it’s implied in Genesis 10:9 that Nimrod, a mighty hunter, was before God. This is interpreted as Nimrod trying to take up the place of God, even though he belonged to the 13th generation in the line of Ham".

"...Judas Iscariot, the 13th guest to make an appearance during Jesus Christ’s Last Supper. Judas is also the one who betrayed Jesus Christ..."

https://christianfaithguide.com/biblical-spiritual-meaning-of-number- 13/

I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France. If I were the 11th, I would have “Vicomte11” as my name. But I’m the 13th, so that is my name. Does genealogy render me a rebel? Doubt.

Superstitious about the number 13?

I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France.

Well, I shouldn't be associating with someone of such low degree as yourself because your commonness always rubs off on those of us who are of true nobility. I am, after all, a child of the King, the Most High God.

Does genealogy render me a rebel?

Unfortunately, in a matter of speaking, yes. Your rebellious nature was passed down to you from your father.

We're all children of God.

We're all children of God.

Worn out cliché.

You can't merely claim to be a child of God any more than I can claim to be a child of a Vicomte.

You were born an enemy of God...you must be reborn to become a child of God.

We're all children of God.

No jesus didnt say that about the warmongers who would supply foreigners with weapons to kill people that they politically hate. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". Youre not a peacemakers but someone who supports war to kill as many russians as possible so we will be dominant in the world.

A bit off topic but this thread is at the moment off topic. I cant find where jesus says to pray to dead sinners, you know Mary. So in truth you dont listen to Jesus but to sinful man. Just saying

I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus

Then as above why do you pray to a dead sinner. Mary never claimed to be someone to pray to. jesus never said to pray to Mary. so what you said is not the truth.

I don’t pray to Mary.

However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples, if you believe him anyway. I am at page 116 of 183. Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.

However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples,

Where did Jesus say that? I don't think he did. Only Elijah and that other dude never died.

Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage?

What do you think of that?

Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.

Take as much time as you want or need. I'm sure you will do a thorough job.

He said it over and over again. Since you don’t remember, I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.

Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage?

What do you think of that?

I don't believe there is such thing as divorce. You are still married and commit adultry if you have sex with anyone other than your wife who you originally married.

I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.

Ok :)

You sound like Jesus. But, what does your Church teach? See? You are responsible for what YOU believe, not for what your “leaders” tell you to believe. I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy. The sins of the Church over the centuries are that: sins - I don’t agree with any of it, and I don’t defend any of it. In truth, I use the fact of all of it to attack the absurd notion of general infallibility. Barrow, specific infallibility is essentially limited to Mary. And I pay attention to Jesus, not Mary. I don’t have a problem with Mary - I think that maternal devotion and placing a woman very high is not a bad thing, but Mary is not the focus of my faith, Jesus is. But as far as being a “rebel”, because I happen to be the 13th Vicomte de Voreiz, and some guy is superstitious about the number 13? I’m the opposite of a rebel. I feel no need to “take a stand” in any meaningful way other than stating my disagreement. I feel no need to rebel against the Church and leave it. Jesus did not rebel against Temple Judaism or tell his people to leave it. He told them, instead, to listen to the good, not follow the bad, but follow him, his teachings instead. He did not require that individuals force the institutions to align with their beliefs - an impossible task. He merely demanded that they follow him, and if you followed him, he did care if you were a Jew or not. So, even though the Jews as an institution taught and did things Jesus said were unnecessary and even negative traditions, he didn’t command abandonment of the religion. Rather, he said - effectively - that if you follow him, the cracked traditions of the institutions don’t matter. I’m no rebel. I remain in the Catholic Church because I was born and raised that way and like the people. But I am forthright in telling you - and the priest for that matter (I am in our men’s group and we talk about Jesus every Saturday, and the priest is with us) - what I think is cracked, wrong and irrelevant. So, to call me a rebel is really off the mark. But to ascribe to me beliefs I don’t have because I’m a Catholic? Jesus was a Jew - who obviously ignored all sorts of Jewish traditions, and criticized them, but made no grand political statement of “leaving Judaism” either. Rather, he simply ignored the things that were not true, demonstrating to me what to do. This was to the great consternation of many priests, scribes and faithful Pharisees of his time. He mocked them, he didn’t leave the faith. I don’t mock people who adore the Eucharist or devote oceans of time to Mary. I just don’t do either, staying focused on what Jesus said. This doesn’t annoy most Catholics (some in the men’s group really don’t like me, but the priest loves me because of my pure and faithful citation of Jesus.). Protestants go after me citing traditions of the Church I ignore. But what I actually believe - well - that I express by citing Jesus, 100%. If someone wants to get pissed at me for THAT…we’ll…go right ahead, Pharisee!

Do recall, though, that Jews were polygamous. Jesus did not prohibit the Jewish tradition of multiple wives. He prohibited divorce.

The tradition of monogamy isn’t Jewish (or Muslim, which follows the Jewish/middle eastern tradition). There are polygamous Jews today. The Jewish rabbinical rule is that whatever the tradition of the country is, that’s the local Jewish practice. Yemenite Jews in Israel have multiple wives. Jesus never said anything about THAT. Divorce was his no no.

Monogamous marriage is a Roman tradition, deriving from their jealous goddess Hera, goddess of marriage. As the Church Romanized, the custom of the Romans was adopted in the Church, without much thought, but it comes from Juno, not Jesus. Greeks and Gauls practiced polygamy. Romans and Germans did not. They DID have girlfriends, mistresses and prostitutes, but not multiple wives. It’s a Western thing, not a Jesus thing.

I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy.

But you'll kill the hell out of the Slavs who are sitting on some real estate you want.

The Russians are invading the Ukraine. We aren’t. We are helping the Ukrainians kill the people invading their country.

Did god help or destroy sodom and gomorrah? They are a pro fag country just like us

Here are some Ukranian sickos. Just like the democrats here.

So, Stone, do you think we should let Ukraine be destroyed by the invading Russians?

Really?

So, I have completed my review of everything that Jesus said, and I am prepared to begin to remind you of it. It is always good to spend time with Jesus, to be reminded of his word, and to remind others of what he said.

This started merely as an effort to demonstrate a point - the Jesus looks to acts, deeds, works, and that he judges us based on what we do. It is not simply a matter of believing he is the Son of God. Obviously he is the Son of God. The miracle of the resurrection, which we can ourselves see (if we will), and be reminded of that, that tells us to look to him and follow his word. For that is what he asks, that we understand, and hear his word, and do it.

But when you read him, there is so much more to see in it, and be reminded to be glad.

Some say that there is a certain way that one must come to Jesus, and none else. Jesus did not say that. He DID say that if you hear his words and don’t do them, it is unavailing. So, let’s hear him then, and do what he said, and it be availing.

Tomorrow I shall begin to write it down, to quote him. I will start with what he said in the Revelation and move backwards from that. Tomorrow.

Ok Vic.

It is tomorrow, and I begin.

First question: do I engage in a bunch of preparatory work, explaining the "proper approach" to Jesus, lining up what I write to prove some point? I could. It is tempting. Everybody else seems to do it. But no. The Son of God's words have moved people for two thousand years. Nothing that I can say or do is going to make any difference. So I'm just going to let him speak.

All I will say is that my intention is to quote him extensively. I know that those who don't like what they are reading will start to shout "Context! Context!" as they come to those things they do not like. I'm not going to argue with them myself. I'm just going to give them more and more and MORE Jesus - let HIM give the context, and let the ones opposed to him start playing the game of picking and choosing a line here, a line there. I like Jesus exactly as he was, and have shaped my own thinking to fit his, what HE taught. So from my perspective, the antidote to any argument against what Jesus said is MORE JESUS. It is not I who has a narrow and crabbed vision of Jesus. I take in the totality. Of course that ends up being very long and time consuming. I don't really apologize for that, because he's just great, and the more Jesus you read, the better. If you don't believe he was the Son of God, perhaps you will be moved by the excellence of what he has to say.

If you do believe he was, then you should revel in every word. And indeed if you do believe he is the Son of God, and you don't like what he is saying, you need to reconsider your own positions and align them with his. Enough of me. Let's begin with Him.

Revelation 22: 12-19

"Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who are rinsing their robes, that it will be their license to the tree of life, and they may enter the gates of the city.

Outside are curs, and drug dealers*, and the sexually immoral, and murderers, and idolators, and everyone making and fondling lies.

I, Jesus, send my messenger** to testify these things to you in the assembly***. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star.****"

*The word is "pharmakeia". A "pharmakon" sold drugs to people to produce the highs and hallucinations that drugs produce. The ancients, and the medievals, ascribed these effects to "magic", so old translations in English will say "sorcerers" or "enchanters" here, but that gives rise to the idea of what we would call a wizard. Jesus was talking about the people who sold drugs to people to blow their minds. The ancients considered that "magic". We don't. The word he used referred specifically to drug peddlers: pharmakeia. It wasn't illegal in the ancient world to be a drug dealer. There were regular shops that sold this stuff. We could, if we translated it literally, say "pharmacists". But that would give the wrong idea too. Todays "pharmakeia" - pharmacists - are not selling potions to blow people's minds with magic. They are a regulated industry selling medicines to heal people. Ancient pharmacists were selling mind-altering drugs - legally at the time. The proper modern equivalent of "pharmakeia", to understand what Jesus was talking about, is "drug dealer". He was NOT talking about old women in the woods who think they are witches. They are simply deluded and have no power. He was talking about people who sell drugs to other people who blow their minds. And he is saying explicitly that they have no place in the city of God.

**"Messenger" is the meaning of the world "angelos". "Angel" means "messenger" in English. We have preferred to not translate the word and leave it as "angel", which gives rise to a specific thought of a winged being. But an "angel" in Greek CAN BE a winged supernatural being. But it is also the word used for human messengers, from the army, for example, carrying a dispatch. Jesus does not specify here, so I have chosen to use the word in its generic meeting. Whether the "messenger" here comes from on high, or refers to the disciples carrying the messages to the various churches, doesn't really matter. And in any case you cannot tell from what Jesus said: he sent his messengers - winged angels or sandal-clad men. It's the message that mattered to Jesus, not the particular physical description of the messenger.

***"Assembly" is what the word "ecclesia" means. It literally means "those called out" - of a regular meeting to a special assembly. What Jesus is referring to here can be called "the churches", which is the usual translation of "ecclesia". That's not wrong, in the sense that he is talking about assemblies of those who follow him, "the faithful", but "church" is a Medieval English word that carries very specific connotations - of specifically the Catholic or Anglican rites, of buldings, which we call "churches". And Jesus is not talking about buildings or political organizations, he is talking about assemblies of people, who follow him. Yes, that is the "church" of the period. But given that the word "church" would not exist for another 1100 years, until the invention of English, and given that when the word "church" developed, it was completely synonymous with the Catholic Church, to use the word "church" here is a loaded anachronism that Catholics use to say "See! See! The Church ALWAYS was." No, it wasn't. Yes, there were always followers of Jesus. No, they were not following the rites of the Catholic Church in the first century. "Assemblies of people devoted to Jesus" is what the "ecclesia" is. A "church", yes, but only in the sense of people gathered for Jesus. In the stronger sense of the Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Anglican or Baptist Church - capital "C"? Absolutely not! Therefore, I use the word "assembly" here, because that is precisely what it was. Were the assemblies "churches"? Yes. Were they THE Church, capital C? Not really, no. "Assembly" is the exact word. "Church" is a 1000 year later invention of English referring to the Catholic Church (the only game in England for the next 550 years.

****In Latin, the morning star is "Lucifer", and "Lucifer" is the morning star. In Latin, there is no connotation of evil, at all, in Lucifer. In fact, Jesus' reference to himself AS the bright morning star, in Latin, is him calling himself "Lucifer". Men such as Saint Lucifer of Cagliari were holy men whose parents named them to honor God, not the Devil. "Lucifer" didn't get the connotation of being a name of Satan until the Middle Ages. In the Latin Vulgate, in St. Peter's first letter, there is a line in English that concludes "if we pray fervently, the morning star will rise in our hearts". In the Latin Bible, this flatly says "if we pray fervently, Lucifer will rise in our hearts." At the time of Christ, "Lucifer" had a GOOD connotation. It does not today, obviously.

So, while I insist on translating "pharmakeia" as the much more accurate "drug dealer", I'm not going to insist on translating "morning star" as "Lucifer". Thanks to medieval superstition, that name carries WAY too much baggage, and superstitious men, such as those afraid of the number 13, will see the Devil. And anyway, "Lucifer" to the Romans WAS the morning star, same thing, so "morning star" is an accurate translation for meaning.

Vic perhaps this deserves its own thread. Your call.

It is tomorrow, and I begin.

Everybody get ready for Vic to lead us into his very own clown world order...

Sure. Can you take my first message and make it the first message of a new thread. Maybe call it "Jesus in his own words."

If you want to call the words of Jesus a "Clown World order", then you may do so.

For my part, I am very respectful of him.