Heresy And That Which Is Not

This section is, without a word for it, an expansion upon an "as searched for" reading rather than one made of pure conjecture (i.e. scripture was deliberately searched out to find for this, but I aim never to twist it). This section is not biblical (though it appears to "fit" as if it were invented to be so), and is by its very definition a heresy. This section is not meant to be taken as "revealed truth" in the same manner as to that which Paul could state in 1Thessalonians:

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (KJV)

(And this is likely taken to refer to the Lord's covenant with Noah, as always guaranteeing the circuit in the Spirit as that made by the least, that it will be present until judgement with the presence of the "bow in the clouds" - a word of knowledge there.)

That "by the word of the Lord" could refer to the interpretation of a passage in scripture as agreed upon (by such brethren we do surely trust) to produce evidence for an assured or consequent fact. We are assured of their (i.e. our brethren's) better education in unlocking the verses with it, whilst the content of its justification remains veiled still! (Or now not.) The contrapositive, that a separate conjecture would prove the scriptures is again, truly a heresy! Although the statement concerning that "proof" is heresy, the actual statement found heresy by it need not be heresy if it be true by the Holy Spirit. Yet I state that this statement, my "heresy", is made by myself; and it is not to be considered to be delivered of the Holy Spirit unless it is also, received as such and confirmed by Him to the reader needing it. It is offered as a "take it or leave it" truth. (But I cry with shoutings, "Grace, grace unto it!", as it is only a small thing. It need only recur that same misfortune which has befallen all of us.)

I.e. that circuit in the "rainbow" or "the Lord's bow" was not expounded upon until the Revelation was published. I trust that educated (rather than intuitive) "leap" as also based on scripture and plainly reasoned out. I admit this is not the case with the content of this section; but instead of "plain verses" entailing a fact as was exampled by the rainbow evidencing a surviving remnant (preserved in creation to its end at the judgement); here, and in the book, the converse is made as by a conjecture; one that once applied, unlocks scripture, and is also truly found in the general sense to be of a heresy, yet it would also account for so much in the Revelation scripture itself.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

And I would trust that the study's alignment to the scriptures themselves is enough for its consistency. For, if the book is found 100% true and correct aside from that one heretical conjecture which is also a prerequisite necessary to the agreement of the study to the scripture, I would trust that I should not be ashamed of it, any more than I would of my own faith agreeing with the scripture (an older excuse for heresy than i am willing to admit!). May a conjecture actually be proven to be scriptural merely because of its agreement? I trust, that were there no similar heresy, there is then no need for the least in the kingdom to overcome (i.e. overcome what, and what is left to overcome at all?); he being the only (or as become the very first) fallen angel redeemed in Jesus Christ. (The heresy is that he is fallen without sin, which indicates no rebellion under the Father, but an act of him moving on an independent work of charity instead.)

I note that a certain verse (2Peter 3:8) contains the one independent biblical (scriptural) numerical fact for interpreting the Revelation that is found to be external and not calculated or deduced from symmetry in the text, and it is given as if a primer, or part of it. Yet this is not a fact evidenced in the scriptures elsewhere! That is, unless John was so informed by Christ in person, then face to face and informing Peter after!

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (KJV)

Is the Holy Spirit good enough for receiving such confirmation instead? There is scripture to answer that either way; and also by accusation. I will show the case "for" the conjecture before it can even be applied.

So, my conjecture which I say is a "fit", I state as "true" as if its reverse could not follow from the scripture; but the Revelation is truly unlocked with the least in the kingdom found to be Christ's right hand, as well as finding the conditions in the seven letters for him to be redeemed without any sin (as a morning star), yet always placed under the continual accusation of Satan. There is very little else that is reasoned out from the scripture; merely that it as "a solution" is a "good fit". (It will evidence the need for a least overall as well as the efficacy of a gospel completed, and thereby bringing the second coming by ensuring the sovereignty of God and His Christ. Then as the seven letters are addressed to the least alone (but for his contemporaries in Thyatira, though that reference may also be made only to/for himself, being possibly "raised" repeatedly with a necessary ministry), it brings sequence to the Revelation as the circuit is a prerequisite to the second coming, and to the justification and completion of it.)

So I note that so understanding the angel to be the least and the recipient of the seven letters in this age (taken from the scriptures) is a literal truth, or too literal. That he is also the right hand of God Himself is also literal or "too literal" (but also shown from the whole text): The result that he is also without sin is actually an apparent heresy, but the very opposite, that he must otherwise be a sinner is also a heresy. What then is any of the scripture about if both may appear true? If the least is sent and sent at all as in the Revelation, I argue that there is no ground to be found for any heresy on sinlessness, unless the scriptures themselves actually engender a complete inconsistency, which is certainly not the case. The least must arrive as does any other, if the interpretation of Revelation is to be truly completed.

By alignment with the rest of the book to the scripture, I state there is no heresy - a fact not stated from the Holy Ghost, but by the scriptures, and by the interpretation unlocked by the metaphysics of the Godhead alone if need be.

Heresy, though (I state), does not always entail a "supposed" fact not in accordance with scripture itself. This is a condition to identify a heresy, as the scripture must not do this at all. However, heresy in line with scripture is yet heresy. (And the 1000 years for a day is in accordance with the Revelation, but does not significantly add content to or take away content from it, but restores or unlocks content as a "key" and it is, most certainly, not heresy.) This page supports the book's accounting for the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" as if it could possibly become a forgivable sin, as long as the guilty sinner has repented of it (and not died unrepentant). If it is impossible for God to save in some cases, then I would equally state that there are yet captives remaining to sin; yet Christ stated "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" concerning His gospel. If, then, Hell's gates stand firm, then there is a (possibly trivial) 'insubstantiality' in the gospel itself that must require addressing. It, the gospel, must require strengthening (rather than adding to) as this is a "loophole". I make a conjecture that there is a genuine use for the very "least in the kingdom of God" by principle, that there is a sense where the gospel may confirm the ability of God to righteously judge and even save anyone He chooses and all He would judge, regardless of any ongoing corruption or blasphemy. It accounts for the "reign of omnipotent God", as well as the cryptic passage on God's new name in the letter to Philadelphia: and there is not a single word in the Revelation that states the "heresy" following after could not be true.

The heresy is that God's "old name" has no singular essence and His "new name" is not justified as that of the creator of this world. In equivalence, the least must justify that same sovereignty over the whole creation, proving God's name an equivalent both new and old and with it bringing the second coming - the creation a fitting container for God still. The old creature must be able to fulfil the conditions of "incorruptibility" in the current world, something Christians have been violating for two thousand years in the carnal sin nature of the flesh, but are forgiven every moment of this sin within the heavenlies.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page