Re: Christians don't follow Christ?

Posted by wizanda on 1143893491
A quick list of some of the problems we all now face is that:

The author of John has not been known or assumed by many to be John Mark the fisher man who was a disciple of Yeshua.
Now Given the fact that in the gospels we are told that John went up the mountain with Yeshua and saw Elijah and mosses this isn't recorded in John, yet we do find it is recorded in Mark, with graphic details included.
Now if you go over the gospels with this in mind at looking at graphic details you will see who is giving a first hand account and who is repeating for to included graphic details would to me imply the person was there.
Which leads me back on to the real author of John is now as in the article I have written on john was a Pharisee.
There are a number of points and I mean about 20 or more, that would have been private knowledge of only the Jewish high council, Pharisees ECT
We are told in Acts, that one of these is named John.
With in the gospel of John we are given 3-4 account of private knowledge or conversations of John Nicodemus. We are told measures of ingredients which only the person who prepared or brought them would have known, which again we are told John Nicodemus was the person who did (so properly writing his own account).

Now most of the Christian ideology you know and I was brought up on is rubbish, I am afraid to say and stems from the gospel of John and Paul.
If you read the whole article it also includes, how there are blatant lies as if truth, this in a court of law, would show the testimony or gospel of John in this case to be untrustworthy.
The point I am referring to is that it says that "Christ said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days and then the disciples knew he meant the body".
Then in Matthew who was a tax collector and Mark, we are told that the Pharisee made up that Yeshua said he would destroy the temple.
So this would mean that the author of John was writing this as if truth, when we are told it is a lie.

Then given all the other evidence that shows the author would have to have been of the high council to known the private conversations that take place.
Then if you go over where the book of John if taken from a Jewish perspective, would imply Yeshua was God or a loony and most will take the second option; it isn't there to encourage people to faith in Yeshua, instead the opposite as what it does... is most Jews would never follow anyone who said they were the father.

Now that is a huge contradiction to Christ's words, in the other gospels, as he said "call no man your father"!
Now is he an idiot and contradicts him self or is the author of John making stuff up as done in other parts.
Now when Christ actually said "I ask you not to drink of the vine, until the coming of the kingdom"
Why in John would it tell you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, so you gain eternal life?
Not only contradicting Christ's teachings, yet according to the torah or the books of the law to eat blood or flesh, is enough to be chucked out of the house of God.
So did Christ really say them things, no how could he?
He tells us again and again, that we should follow the commandments, keep the law and do what God asks, giving up wealth and following the commandments to gain eternal life!
Not that you must take part of Christ (his blood and flesh) to have eternal life; instead that God is life and to help everyone as one family.

Ok so where did John get all of this from?

Peter and what does peter mean Stone, it isn't a name; Christ was being clever and trying to show that he would trip every one up.
As the only time you will find mentioned in the same sentence in the Bible rock and stone as Christ has, is in Isaiah and the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence.
Now according to Isaiah God is the stone of the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence.

So what is both Paul and Simon peters going on about saying it is Christ, did Christ? No he referred to him self in context; these include the rook, the plummet stone, the servant, a prophet, the Christ, a son or Child of God, and the door keeper.

If you go over what I am saying carefully you will see if you remove the books I speak of that Christ does indeed not portray any ego or say he is God in anyway and said it right.

It is these books of John, Paul and Simons that have confused everyone and are foretold by Christ and the rest of the Bible to come as the perdition and the falling away.

This is what it means when it refers to the dragon as we are told that a dragon is something that portrays its self as God.
Now take away the books I have stated (Plus Christ did say beware of the doctrine of the Pharisee).

So though I do like Simon, you can see with in the gospels how Christ repeatedly pointed to him what faith was and that being in God; not him self!
Christ even goes as far to call him Satan as he acknowledges the things of men more then God.
I would like to leave Simon out of the picture and just say Paul and John's gospels is Anti-Christ, yet Simon vouches for Paul's doctrine, so giving it authority, it shouldn't have.
Also that in the prophecy in Zechariah it says a stone will be laid before Yeshua; well that happened and Christ called Simon stone (peter).... The thing you have to ask your self is why?

Did Christ make a mistake?

How could he, if he was guided by God and the amount of prophecies that have been fore filled is astounding; so proving God's hand was on it from the start.

Simon peter gets it completely muddled up with the stone and plummet stone as they are totally different things in prophecy.
We have a stone engraved as to stumble i.e. the bible and Peter means stone so God did what he said in Zechariah and laid a stone before Yeshua; shame they changed his name, as then this would be obvious to see otherwise.

Then really who I should have started with or I first saw and many have, is Paul as he blatantly contradicts Christ teachings they are the exact opposite. Then pretending he was following him how can he be?
When if you follow Paul's teachings, it forces you to not to follow Christ making it anti-Christ

Take a step out of the picture and have a look at it, with these bits in mind and you have John trying to help Yeshua, whilst he was alive and then after he decided to join Simons modified version of Christ teachings as to point at Christ more then God, as if in Acts is a correct account, this would imply this.

Then we have Paul or Saul, who uses to work with John, he would have be under him and when Saul went to get orders to murderer Christians, he went to the high council who we are told John is part of around that time.

Now if this doesn't sound strange to you, then its time to clear the soot out and have another look.

You see this is written throughout prophecy and I am working on finishing that ultimate biblical question I started, as it is possible to almost take one of every prophets examples, to show why things are foretold and how to even believe God would sacrifice, is so wrong and it is mans idea.

Now Christ told the parable of the vine dresser and them killing the son to steel the inheritance, this is referring to him self!
What do Paul Simon and John teach you??
You have inheritance as he they murdered the vine dressers son!!!
Wasn't Christ telling you that God would give them nothing as they killed the son, then when you take in to account that if you translate Zechariah properly, That it actual says the part about the potters field and the 30 pieces of silvers is to cut of grace and inheritance to the house of Israel; why do you think they have had so much bad luck since then?

So what's the difference if you follow Paul' teachings, then you believe that works don't count... That's anti Christ as you have to fetch in the harvest.
That you have inheritance from grace.. that's Anti-Christ as he cuts off both, if they paid the 30 pieces of silver a they did.
So it makes it like walking through land mines to follow Christ and Paul at the same time.

If you follow John then you will believe 3:16 God so loved the world he gave his only son....Who said this? A disciple?


A Pharisee!!

Who lies to you in other parts of the gospel also and twist the truth to suit them selves, as it does say, we took this account from a disciple at the end of the gospel of John. So properly meaning it was the Pharisee interpretation of events take from hear say and what they knew; the points that are clear are what they knew, the points in the book of John about Christ, correct in comparison with the other gospels are Anti-Christ.

(I will explain why as I do realise this is tricky to see clearly, it's taken a while for me to understand it, yet I can explain it clearly with prophecy and scripture to show why.

Simon' s teaching you Christ is you savoir and that his blood washes you or anything like that is sick and seriously anti-Christ, as according to Christ those who swear by the sacrifice are guilty of it!!
So in agreeing you condemn your self by choosing to follow the Pharisees teaching of Christ is your sacrifice............
It's a lie.........
Why would God allow something like this to happen, you may ask?

The Bible tells you this will happen and it is called a snare to see who is true and refine them, as many will take the easy path, yet the path is narrow..

This whole thing has got to stop, look at what is happening to us all!

with Christianity stemming from the Pharisees teachings and not Christ it make him out to be God, so contradicting the prophets the world over and causing conflicts as we have today..

This for anyone who doesn't know is the Muslims many problems, as the Koran states as they changed the Bible
That is what Mohammed said to fight against and that is what is still happening till this day as no one has studied why.. (Until now)

So separating the houses of Israel and Judah as foretold.

Yet this is where it gets tricky to fix as the Jews take no responsibility for the New Testament, yet it was the Jewish council who did the things, so really it could do with them taking a proper look at this.

As to understand all of the points you need a Jewish up bringing and to be well founded in the Torah or the law of what you are allowed and not in Jewish customs spoken by the prophets and Moses.
Then not to be weigh laid by reading Paul first, as this seriously misguides to make you believe the lie.

This is what many Churches do and really I should approach many teachers and get them to understand this properly, yet the internet is as good a place as any to start.

So if you read this and want your pastor, vicar or teacher of the Bible to question this ask them to approach me and I will discuss each and every point on here with them to show them why, so you can also see.

I think even if I wanted to write something that good to stop a persons teaching Saul and John did, I don't think I could so well, I give them credit as in many cases, it has taken me a computerised bible to find all the reference I needed.

So anyway that's about it, basically what it is referring to in Revelations with mother of all harlots, is the Churches, that stem from the Roman Catholic church a city established on blood shed of Christ. Where the people get drunk on the blood of the dead saints this is communion a Christ never told anyone to drink, in fact he said the opposite
The reason it is called the mother? Is it has many daughters who worship anything other then God, so being a harlot.

To give an image to God is a sin, so why if Christ says don't follow the Pharisees they refer to Christ being the image of God and blatant lie cheat and cover stuff do people follow them?

This Post was from: