'Fully God and fully man'....or, 'God & man'? Is there a difference?

[74x12]

Not sure of anywhere?

John 2:19 and this was the comment they twisted against Him in Matthew 26:61. He meant His own body which is so obvious because He was dead for 3 days.

John is written by the Sanhedrin as the evidence suggests, as only someone who was privy to all the private Pharisee conversations, could have recorded them so well.

John-Mark the Fisherman most likely wrote the Gospel of Mark, as it recorded the Transfiguration which he attended.

Simon says Yeshua is "the Christ", that is a Pharisaic concept, and Simon in John also went to betray Yeshua; which is why he denied him 3 times on the way back.

You're forgetting Nicodemus who was a one of the Rabbis. Nicodemus most likely contributed to the book or we wouldn't know some of those stories. So no that doesn't mean John was a Pharisee. It just means Nicodemus must have helped with the book.

the Christ is a Jewish concept not just Pharisaic, anyway the Pharisees were actually 100% right about a lot of the things they believed. Jesus said to one Pharisee that he was not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34)

It was mostly their hypocrisy Jesus had problems with. Although He did disagree with some of their doctrines as well which were not based on the Torah or prophetic writings.

Malachi 4:5-6 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes. (6) He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a Curse (Deuteronomy 28).”

The Curse is currently over the world until all things are fulfilled, and the ungodly are removed from the world.

It says "lest". I do not think this curse is on the world. That's why John came to prevent the curse. John actually succeeded massively and many of Jesus disciples were disciples of John previously. John btw is not the old Elijah. The old Elijah never died. He was translated; so that excludes the idea of reincarnation. John was the new Elijah.

Matthew 10:34 “Don’t think that I came to send peace on the earth. I didn’t come to send peace, but a sword.

In my opinion.

The sword is the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. The Word of God is always dividing or separating things. Either to benefit or as judgment. It's a double edged sword and cuts both ways able to kill and make alive. It separated between Adam, Eve and the tree of Life because of their sin. Thus the Word of God brought about their death because they disobeyed it. The Word of God divides even between soul and spirit and is a discerner of thoughts and intentions of the heart. "(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:35) So of course as Jesus says in Matthew 10 it divides between fathers and sons and between family members. That's because one believes and the other doesn't. So this causes division and strife between family members. The word "holy" means "set apart" and this is the effect of the Word of God. To make a set apart people. You cannot love your own family more than Christ and if they don't want to believe then they might end up hating you because they don't like the changes you've made.

 

[wizanda]

John 2:19 and this was the comment they twisted against Him in Matthew 26:61. He meant His own body which is so obvious because He was dead for 3 days.

That is perjury in John, as Matthew and Mark say it is a false made up testimony that said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days, the temple still has not been rebuilt.

So no that doesn't mean John was a Pharisee. It just means Nicodemus must have helped with the book.

This is what was possibly meant by, "the Pharisees are like Graves, and you don't know they're there" (Luke 11:44)...

John Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and his theological ethics have been used to write the false Gospel, that is why it has so many mistakes in theology, and doctrine.

the Christ is a Jewish concept not just Pharisaic

There are specific prophecies about the Messiah; yet that actual word "The Messiah" is established in Rabbinic writings more than in the Tanakh...

Thus it is highly likely Simon was coming from a very Pharisaic upbringing; which explains why Yeshua kept having to correct him.

I do not think this curse is on the world.

Isaiah 24:6 Therefore the Curse has devoured the earth, and those who dwell therein are found guilty. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

That's why John came to prevent the curse.

Malachi 2:2 If you will not listen, and if you will not take it to heart, to give glory to my name,” says Yahweh of Armies, “then I will send the Curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have Cursed them already, because you do not take it to heart... Malachi 4:5-6... Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

We can recognize we're inside the CPU, and being processed; yet we're so limited in comparison...

We're a single perspective; the CPU quantifies all perspectives.

We've all got divine nature already as being Elohim or Angels; why would anyone want to steal the role of being the CPU, that to me is why people go to Hell, as they're so full of their self, they fall lower than here.

In my opinion.

No. We're not a single perspective. We labor under that illusion, when what we actually are, is the whole enchilada, in the same sense that a single drop of ocean water is everything the entire ocean is. And that, though each snowflake form is unique, all are made of formless water.

'All Perspectives' is, in reality, No Particular Perspective, manifesting itself as 'All Perspectives', 'All Perspectives' being just a play of the underlying Reality.

If 'we've all got divine nature already', that is to say, by default, then separation is only an illusion. Divine Union is already, and has always been the case. Any and all efforts to gain Divine Union only take us further away from it's realization.

Because of the illusion of separation, a single perspective we call 'self', or ego, has lost touch with the divine nature within, and is subject to craving for continuing on in perpetuity, to 'get' what it thinks it lacks; ie; to be immortalized. Something like that.

Because we labor under the illusion of a separate, limited self, we can't see or realize That which is Unlimited until the true Self awakens, and a radical transformation of consciousness occurs. We call this radical transformation 'Enlightenment'. But it's not the True Self that sees That which is Unlimited in a subject/object relationship; it's that the True Self is, in reality, none other than the Unlimited. The subject/object split in the mind is now healed.

"Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind"
Patanjali, The Yoga Sutras

 

[wizanda]

That which is Unlimited until the true Self awakens

Well aware of that ideology in multiple cultures, the problem is tho, we're on the top floor of Hell, and souls are kicked out of Heaven for having Self...

God has no Self, as it is an identification with a historical timeline; God is beyond time, and personal identity.

Thus "I Am" consciousness as you're presenting, is the reason souls end up here or lower, as they want to serve themSelves before Oneness.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Well aware of that ideology in multiple cultures, the problem is tho, we're on the top floor of Hell, and souls are kicked out of Heaven for having Self...

God has no Self, as it is an identification with a historical timeline; God is beyond time, and personal identity.

Thus "I Am" consciousness as you're presenting, is the reason souls end up here or lower, as they want to serve themSelves before Oneness.

In my opinion.

I guess I assumed too much via the use of the word 'Self' with a capital 'S'; it is not the finite, limited 'self' you refer to, that is, the illusory self of Identification, but is the Being of the divine nature itself.

If 'self' is an illusion, how can one be kicked out of a heaven into a hell, when there is no 'self' that can be kicked out? The concepts of a heaven vs. a hell is the mind dwelling in duality and causation, not Oneness. You seem to be saying that there is 'Oneness' over here, and 'not-Oneness' over there, a duality. Oneness has no relative opposite since not-Oneness is a duality, and duality is, in terms of Oneness, an illusion. Oneness is The Absolute, not a relative state.

You imply, via the action of being 'kicked out' of a heaven and into a hell, that these are real places, rather than psychological states of consciousness. Is that how you are describing it? You cannot be born and die and then go to a heaven or a hell if there is no 'self' to begin with. So if that is the case, then the entire scenario is just another set of conceptual frameworks of the mind, based on yet more conceptual frameworks of heaven and hell, good and evil, and reward and punishment, all based on the notion of having a 'self'.

'I Am' does not refer to the self of existence in Identification in Time and Space; it refers to Being beyond Time and Space that exists only in this timeless Present Moment. Hence:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

 

[wizanda]

If 'self' is an illusion, how can one be kicked out of a heaven into a hell, when there is no 'self' that can be kicked out?

Because our soul exists as a dynamic evolving piece of music.

You imply, via the action of being 'kicked out' of a heaven and into a hell, that these are real places, rather than psychological states of consciousness. Is that how you are describing it?

There are many levels of quantum physics, and our experience of reality is varied depending on our conscious level...

Like Heaven is the top few dimensions, and Hell is the lowest dimensions...

Life is also life this, where we can be more conscious of additional dimensions of reality.

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

Unfortunately John was made up.

Oneness is The Absolute, not a relative state.

Heaven is the ultimate state of Oneness.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Because our soul exists as a dynamic evolving piece of music.

A 'dynamic, evolving piece of music' is not a static entity like a 'soul' or a 'self'; it is a streaming action, and a streaming action cannot be 'kicked out of heaven'. Can it? It's like mistaking the action of a whirling water form for a thing we call 'whirlpool'. There is no such 'whirlpool'.

There are many levels of quantum physics, and our experience of reality is varied depending on our conscious level...

Like Heaven is the top few dimensions, and Hell is the lowest dimensions...

Life is also life this, where we can be more conscious of additional dimensions of reality.

We can dream of a heaven or a hell, thinking them to be real, but they are just a dream. When we awaken, heaven and hell vanish. So my question: are heaven and hell real places or just psychological states? And even when we 'awaken' from dream-sleep to the state of Identification, we do not know this level of consciousness to be real, even though our senses tell us it is. Most spiritual teachings tell us there is a yet higher level which can be experienced as a true awakening, which is transcendent of all dualities, and that includes any notions of heavens or hells.

Unfortunately John was made up.

Made up or not, 'I Am' rings true from the POV of the transcendent state of conscious awareness.

Heaven is the ultimate state of Oneness.

The very nature of a concept of a 'heaven' makes it a duality, rather than an absolute. By definition, it must include a hell. Perhaps you could employ another term in lieu of 'heaven'? 'Oneness' is Oneness. We realize and experience that only when duality is transcended and seen as 'One'. IOW, 'Oneness' is the union of Yin and Yang, which, in this case, are representative of Heaven and Hell, which, for them to be real, must include the existence of individual souls we call 'self' to exist in. Until you experience first-hand existence in either Heaven or Hell, they remain conceptual frameworks which must be transcended.

 

[Milton Platt]

Some churches tend to call Jesus fully God and fully man. Is there a difference between this description, and, for instance, God & man?


Does this change His person?

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?


Thanks

You cannot have 200% of something......

 

[74x12]

That is perjury in John, as Matthew and Mark say it is a false made up testimony that said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days, the temple still has not been rebuilt.

In Mark they accused Him of saying He would destroy the temple that is made with hands. That is human hands. Jesus really meant His own body which was "cut out without hands" (Daniel 2:34) So they completely represented Jesus; one witness even represented Jesus as someone who claimed He would destroy Herod's temple and build a new one in 3 days without human hands. That's the false accusation.

Mark 14:58
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

This is what was possibly meant by, "the Pharisees are like Graves, and you don't know they're there" (Luke 11:44)...

John Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and his theological ethics have been used to write the false Gospel, that is why it has so many mistakes in theology, and doctrine.

It has no mistakes in theology or doctrine. The idea that John is Nicodemus is unfounded and it's bizarre. Sorry.

There are specific prophecies about the Messiah; yet that actual word "The Messiah" is established in Rabbinic writings more than in the Tanakh...

Thus it is highly likely Simon was coming from a very Pharisaic upbringing; which explains why Yeshua kept having to correct him.

Simon as a Pharisee is not credible. Sorry. He was a simple fisherman and even called himself a sinner. (Luke 5:8) The fact he kept messing up just shows he was a fallible human being like the rest of us.

And yes the Rabbis got the idea of the Messiah from the Tanakh. Which means it is an idea of Judaism itself rather than only Pharisees.

Malachi 2:2 If you will not listen, and if you will not take it to heart, to give glory to my name,” says Yahweh of Armies, “then I will send the Curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have Cursed them already, because you do not take it to heart... Malachi 4:5-6... Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26.

In my opinion.

The point is that John prevented a further curse than what was already on the earth. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Desert Snake]

You cannot have 200% of something......

Right. You can however have one thing, with different aspects.

 

[godnotgod]

The very nature of a concept of a 'heaven' makes it a duality, rather than an absolute. By definition, it must include a hell.... 'Oneness' is Oneness. We realize and experience that only when duality is transcended and seen as 'One'.

It is important to note that, in Buddhist thought, it is said that Nirvana and Samsara are not different, and that is because both are empty of inherent self-nature, and to understand this principle is to understand The Law of Dependent Origination. See the Heart Sutra:*

Binding/bondage belongs to the relative truth. In the ultimate truth, if binding existed prior to the bondage of a sentient being, then it would have inherent existence. Yet, ultimately, neither bondage nor anything else has inherent existence (Svabhava, own-being, self), and so release from bondage is not an inherently existent phenomenon either.

This is important because grasping onto the false idea of inherent existence is the primary cause for suffering. Nagarjuna felt that the term “nirvana” was useful for indicating spiritual release, but only if the term did not refer to something that could be an object for clinging. A few verses on, he says, “Those who grasp at the notion, ‘I will be free from grasping and Nirvana will be mine,’ have a great grasp on grasping.”

In The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Jay Garfield provides a good explanation of this:

"It is [possible] to grasp after nirvana – to reify it as a state and to crave it as a phenomenon inherently different from samsara and as highly desirable since it is indeed characterized as liberation from suffering. But this grasping onto the end of grasping is itself a grasping and so precludes the attainment of nirvana. Nirvana requires, according to Nagarjuna, a complete cessation of grasping, including that onto nirvana itself. While that might seem paradoxical, it is not: To grasp onto something in this sense requires, inter alia, that one reify it. By refusing to reify liberation, in virtue of seeing it as the correlative of bondage, which itself is not inherently existent, it is possible to pursue the path to liberation without creating at the same time a huge obstacle on that path – the root delusion with regard to nirvana itself."

If things do not exist in themselves, then from the ultimate truth they are unreal, illusions. Nirvana, for Nagarjuna, if seen as something inherently existent, is only an illusion that will perpetuate more grasping, followed by more suffering.

There are no real distinctions in Madhyamaka philosophy because all things are considered empty of inherent existence or own-nature. For samsara and nirvana to be distinct from one another, they would have to be inherently existent things. But they are empty, and within this emptiness, they are without distinction.

Samsara and nirvana are only different in the relative sense, because they designate entirely different things. Again, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference, because of their emptiness. Everything is empty, including emptiness.

This many sound like theoretical nonsense, but it has a practical application. The aim of this thinking is to shatter all dualities and destroy all avenues for grasping. When we can get past dualistic thinking, that is, seeing only the distinctions, not recognizing the parity or the correspondence between things, then the world opens up for us. We then see the wholeness of life. We become whole. Being whole means to be healthy, and this sort of spiritual health translates into release from the things that bind us to suffering. It is freedom.

Why Samsara is Nirvana – The Endless Further

*https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

 

[wizanda]

A 'dynamic, evolving piece of music' is not a static entity like a 'soul' or a 'self';

Soul is a dynamic evolving piece of music, and self is a personal identification with that piece of music within a linear timeline.

it is a streaming action, and a streaming action cannot be 'kicked out of heaven'. Can it?

In computer code, if an equation becomes corrupted it can be a stream of data that is then sent to another section.

So my question: are heaven and hell real places or just psychological states?

They are real dimensions, Hell is the lowest quantum physics dimension and Heaven is the highest.

Most spiritual teachings tell us...

What we want to hear.

Until you experience first-hand existence in either Heaven or Hell, they remain conceptual frameworks which must be transcended.

I've had a NDE and been to both.

build a new one in 3 days without human hands. That's the false accusation.

Did you read the article? He never said anything about 3 days or human hands... They made that bit up, and John repeats the lie as truth.

It has no mistakes in theology or doctrine.

Unfortunately given evidence showing many of the contradictions, whereas you've got a belief you like the book, thus try to defend it.

Simon as a Pharisee is not credible. Sorry. He was a simple fisherman

A Pharisee is a religious label; Simon wasn't Sadducee or a Levite, wasn't an Essene or Ebionite, he was Pharisaic.

The point is that John prevented a further curse than what was already on the earth.

That isn't what the scriptures say, and what historically has happened.... The Jews have had the Curse that Moses stated on them since that time (Deuteronomy 28).

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Soul is a dynamic evolving piece of music, and self is a personal identification with that piece of music within a linear timeline.

That's just creating a seemingly frozen reality we call 'soul' out of an action, while identification with it as 'self' is an illusion. The stream of energy pulsation we call 'music' is gone as soon as it comes into existence. IOW, it is an experience, and not an entity. But there is no 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself. Besides that, music cannot come into existence without the background of total Silence, which, unlike the music, does not come and go. So who we really are is the Silence, and not the play that comes from the Silence, the play being only a temporal expression in flux. Identification with the play as 'self' is pure fiction.

All you are really saying is that 'soul' is none other than 'self'. Both are identification with music as entity, and entity is the encapsulation of consciousness into a frozen reality by consciousness itself. This is where the bondage arises as indicated in the piece I posted about Nirvana and Samsara, above.

In computer code, if an equation becomes corrupted it can be a stream of data that is then sent to another section.

By 'section' I assume you mean 'hell'. But isn't the corruption itself the source of the suffering, or hell? So then why must it be 'sent' to another location when, because it is corrupted, it already IS in the 'other' location? Corruption of data is identification with the equation as 'self'. Authentically, then, we are, like the music stream, not the equation, but the source of the equation itself. The equation is just a thought representation of reality, but is not that reality itself.

They are real dimensions, Hell is the lowest quantum physics dimension and Heaven is the highest.

'Dimensions' of what? In the words of Shunryu Suzuki: 'The idea of 'another realm' is 'just a substantial, delusive idea'.

What we want to hear.

I was referring to the spiritual experience, and not to religious dogma.

I've had a NDE and been to both.

You experienced both in your mind.

What is between heaven and hell?

 

[wizanda]

But isn't the corruption itself the source of the suffering, or hell?

Corruption does add to the equation; yet just being full of self causes ego reactions, which leads to suffering.

So then why must it be 'sent' to another location when, because it is corrupted, it already IS in the 'other' location?

'Sent' is maybe bad wording, as much happens automatically due to weight; dense vibration such as ego/self falls lower as it has a numerical value of 1, whereas Heavenly beings have to have a value of 0 to ascend.

'Dimensions' of what?

Dimensions of quantum physics, of reality.

Authentically, then, we are, like the music stream, not the equation, but the source of the equation itself.

We are the equation, which is musical in mathematical nature; God is the CPU, thus the Source.

What is between heaven and hell?

Multiple other dimensions, where we are somewhere in the middle.

All you are really saying is that 'soul' is none other than 'self'.

The Infinite nature of our soul is not contained in a limited view point of self; as we've lived many lifes, so which self identity should we identify with.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Corruption does add to the equation; yet just being full of self causes ego reactions, which leads to suffering.

What leads to suffering is to believe that self is real and then acting upon it, like diving into an empty swimming pool.

'Sent' is maybe bad wording, as much happens automatically due to weight; dense vibration such as ego/self falls lower as it has a numerical value of 1, whereas Heavenly beings have to have a value of 0 to ascend.

Ego/self can only have weight if it is real. Originally, ego/self does not exist, so where does a weightless being acquire the weight of ego/self from?

Dimensions of quantum physics, of reality.

But isn't reality consciousness? Isn't quantum physics just a mathematical representation of reality? It only exists as a feature of man's intervention, but not originally. IOW, it's just a description.

We are the equation, which is musical in mathematical nature; God is the CPU, thus the Source.

To say that God is the Source, and man is the creation of the Source, is due to the subject/object split in the mind, which itself is a conceptual framework about reality. The subject/object split does not originally exist.

Multiple other dimensions, where we are somewhere in the middle.

We are in the middle where these dimensions do not exist, and the 'dimensions' of heaven and hell are in reality dimensions of consciousness, in this case, mental projections of Good and Bad into Extreme Good, and Extreme Bad.

"Oh Lord, let not my gaze be too high nor too low, but fixed on that thin line just between Heaven and Earth"
Rumi

The Infinite nature of our soul is not contained in a limited view point of self; as we've lived many lifes, so which self identity should we identify with.

Not identifying with any self whatsoever is to be free. It is then that one realizes his true nature, which is that of being in the state of divine union, like the drop returning and completely merging with the vast formless ocean. One, however, must still go about his daily routine in the ordinary world of Identification as a self, but the difference is that now you KNOW there is no self. You have awakened to your true nature, which is the same nature as the Source. There is now no longer a subject/object split in the mind; there is no longer any division between God and the world, such division having been only in the mind all along. Suddenly, the entire Universe becomes conscious and alive.

The limited view point of self is an illusion. Once this is transcended, we realize that we have never been separated from the Infinite, not even for a nanosecond.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivenkenanda

 

[godnotgod]

The following excerpt is from an interview of Sam Harris by Gary Gutting:

G.G.: You deny the existence of the self, understood as “an inner subject thinking our thoughts and experiencing our experiences.” You say, further, that the experience of meditation (as practiced, for example, in Buddhism) shows that there is no self. But you also admit that we all “feel like an internal self at almost every waking moment.” Why should a relatively rare — and deliberately cultivated — experience of no-self trump this almost constant feeling of a self?

S.H.: Because what does not survive scrutiny cannot be real. Perhaps you can see the same effect in this perceptual illusion:

It certainly looks like there is a white square in the center of this figure, but when we study the image, it becomes clear that there are only four partial circles. The square has been imposed by our visual system, whose edge detectors have been fooled. Can we know that the black shapes are more real than the white one? Yes, because the square doesn’t survive our efforts to locate it — its edges literally disappear. A little investigation and we see that its form has been merely implied.

What could we say to a skeptic who insisted that the white square is just as real as the three-quarter circles and that its disappearance is nothing more than, as you say, “a relatively rare — and deliberately cultivated — experience”? All we could do is urge him to look more closely.

The same is true about the conventional sense of self — the feeling of being a subject inside your head, a locus of consciousness behind your eyes, a thinker in addition to the flow of thoughts. This form of subjectivity does not survive scrutiny. If you really look for what you are calling “I,” this feeling will disappear. In fact, it is easier to experience consciousness without the feeling of self than it is to banish the white square in the above image.

G.G.: But it seems to depend on who’s looking. Buddhist schools of philosophy say there is no self, and Buddhist meditators claim that their experiences confirm this. But Hindu schools of philosophy say there is a self, a subject of experience, disagreeing only about its exact nature; and Hindu meditators claim that their experiences confirm this. Why prefer the Buddhist experiences to the Hindu experiences? Similarly, in Western philosophy we have the phenomenological method, an elaborate technique for rigorously describing consciousness. Some phenomenologists find a self and others don’t. With so much disagreement, it’s hard to see how your claim that there’s really no self can be scientifically established.

S.H.: Well, I would challenge your interpretation of the Indian literature. The difference between the claims of Hindu yogis and those of Buddhist meditators largely boil down to differences in terminology. Buddhists tend to emphasize what the mind isn’t — using words like selfless, unborn, unconditioned, empty, and so forth. Hindus tend to describe the experience of self-transcendence in positive terms — using terms such as bliss, wisdom, being, and even “capital-S” Self. However, in a tradition like Advaita Vedanta, they are definitely talking about cutting through the illusion of the self.

The basic claim, common to both traditions, is that we spend our lives lost in thought. The feeling that we call “I”— the sense of being a subject inside the body — is what it feels like to be thinking without knowing that you are thinking. The moment that you truly break the spell of thought, you can notice what consciousness is like between thoughts — that is, prior to the arising of the next one. And consciousness does not feel like a self. It does not feel like “I.” In fact, the feeling of being a self is just another appearance in consciousness (how else could you feel it?).

The Illusion of the Self | Sam Harris

 

[wizanda]

What leads to suffering is to believe that self is real

We all have a self identification.

so where does a weightless being acquire the weight of ego/self from?

Even in music, if one instrument has to much ego it spoils the symphony.

But isn't reality consciousness?

Yes it is all consciousness vibrating at different speeds, and these can be dissected into dimensions.

Isn't quantum physics just a mathematical representation of reality?

Quantum physics is a method for understanding the fabric of reality.

'dimensions' of heaven and hell are in reality dimensions of consciousness, in this case, mental projections of Good and Bad

Personally don't see it in good vs bad; just frequency, dense vibrations sit low, and higher vibrations ascend.

In my opinion.

 

[74x12]

Unfortunately given evidence showing many of the contradictions, whereas you've got a belief you like the book, thus try to defend it.

You haven't really disproven the book of John as much as you seem to think you have. I don't want to be mean to you, but your thread is full of errors ...

I defend the book of John because it has immense power for good in the world. It's able to open someone's eyes when the holy Spirit shows them the truth. The holy Spirit is our teacher just as the book of John teaches us. On the other hand if the holy Spirit is not leading someone then they're blind to the things of God and they cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A Pharisee is a religious label; Simon wasn't Sadducee or a Levite, wasn't an Essene or Ebionite, he was Pharisaic.

The Pharisees were the religious leaders so most people listened to them. Jesus even said to listen to the scribes and Pharisees when it came to the Torah observance. (Matthew 23:2) The Essenes weren't even really on the radar. A small commune in the desert somewhere doing their own thing. The Sadducees were even more elitest than the Pharisees. Of course Peter was "Pharisaic".

That isn't what the scriptures say, and what historically has happened.... The Jews have had the Curse that Moses stated on them since that time (Deuteronomy 28).

So why would God say He would smite the earth with a curse if He had already smitten the earth with the curse? The fact is God had not yet smitten the earth with this curse in Malachi 4:6.

 

[godnotgod]

The Essenes weren't even really on the radar. A small commune in the desert somewhere doing their own thing.

The Essenes were Nazarenes, a sect of the Essenes. Yeshua and Paul were Nazarenes, and that does not mean 'citizens of Nazareth'; there was no 1st Century 'Nazareth'.

Acts 24:5 ►
King James Bible
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jesus-nazarene-myth-stefan-vucak

There were 3 Essene groups, two of which were The Nazorean Essenes of Mt. Carmel, a mystical family monastery, where it is reputed that Yeshua lived and taught with his family. There was the Therapeutae in Greece and Egypt, whose teachings originally came from Theravada Buddhist monks from India. these were healers, and Yeshua had contact via the Nazorean monastery at Mt. Carmel with them. Yeshua's original teachings were Eastern, not Western. But they became corrupted by Paul who overwrote his teachings with pagan doctrines and then launched modern Christianity.

 

[wizanda]

You haven't really disproven the book of John as much as you seem to think you have.

Huge assumptions, first off spent 14 years debating this with people; so well aware people don't drop their belief in the Gospel of John, just because you show them 30 plus contradictions....

Same with Paul's writings.

I don't want to be mean to you, but your thread is full of errors ...

There are always going to be errors, and this is the point; yet the points you put forward i did debate on the thread, and you've got weak arguments.

So why would God say He would smite the earth with a curse if He had already smitten the earth with the curse?

The Curse is specific, and is explained in Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, and has specifically happened as stipulated.

In my opinion.