Talk:Great Gospel of John

message: Ok, I'm here to help but I'm trying to rein in my "how is this notable?" instinct so I think I'll follow dab's lead.Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  That is why I am here to help but not to come in with my normal pugilism.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For now keeping article as is and urging discussion.  Would be interested to hear ideas for improvement.Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep urging Torchrunner to come over to the talk page and discuss edits but no luck.Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to begin? 

message: Despite the suggestion in the article that others say Lorber makes predictions, I could find none using Google Books and Scholar. What I did find was a self-published book by an anonymous author  -- see  which is the page of the company publishing the book - also available through  again self-publishing. I've removed the entire section. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will cease blocking that edit then.Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Back when the quotes were up I thought it humorous that many of them seemed to be talking about the steam engine becoming more wide-spread (rather than about the internet).Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: here's a thought ... might we categorize Lorber under :Category:Steampunk? --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediction claims 

message: Somebody asked for verification on what I wrote.
In the great Gospel book 1 chapter 242 the following text appears:
[10] Kyk, Ek laat deur My engel self elke jaar al die vrugtebome waarvan die mense die vrugte eet, baie sorgvuldig ondersoek, sodat geen appel, geen peer en geen enkele vrug met watter naam ookal, waarvan tydens die bloei die aanset gevorm word, ryp word, as hulleself daarin een of ander, vir die ontwikkelingsfase van die vrug, nog te onreine geeste binnegesmokkel het; al dergelike vrugte word nog algeheel groen van die boom of die struik verwyder. 
[11] Dieselfde voorsorgmaatreëls word getref by al die, vir die menslike voeding bestemde, graansoorte en plante. 
[12] Maar die blinde mens besef dit nie slegs gladnie, maar verslind nog bowendien as `n smulhappie alles wat vir hom maar enigsins lekker voorkom; is dit dan `n wonder dat hy siek, traag, vermoei, gebrekkig en dus steeds ongelukkiger word?
[13] So is ook al die soorte sogenaamde aartappels veral vir kinders en sogende vroue, eweas vir swanger vroue, meer as sleg, en nòg slegter is koffie! Maar wat blind is, sien niks en dit geniet gulsig van beide vanweë die aangename smaak; maar die kinders word daardeur liggaamlik ongelukkig, en ten slotte ongelukkige vrouens en mans. Dit steur die blinde egter nie; hy eet immers ook veel swaarder gifstowwe - waarom sou hy die twee ligtere gifsoorte dan nie eet nie?!
When I translate it it basically comes down to explaining how in each fruits and vegies are captive spirits, but some are not good to eat and others are not "ripe" yet (green fruits).
In verse 13 in particular it is explained how potatoes and coffee are not good to eat and should be avoided.
If you look at Tim4:1-3, Paul warned about doctrines of demons that would come in in latter times, teaching people to abstain from marriage and also to abstain from foods which God made to be received with thanksgiving.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but an argument that instructing people to avoid starchy food and caffeine is proof of satanism is in violation of WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NPoV and WP:BOLLOCKS; I am sorry if this offends but I would refer you to WP:SPADE please, just stop.Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: we get it, Torchrunner subscribes to sola scriptura, meaning his idea of an "argument" is quoting a few verses of the bible and then showing how these quotes in connection with a particular situation are making some point or other for him. While this would make Torchrunner a great scholasticist, Wikipedia is not a 13th century project, and the approach is completely invalid for our purposes. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike  I subscribe to scriptura carnero attero and as such don't see that as a valid argument.Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: So find a reliable source on the views of Orthodox Christianity on this subject and report that sources statement.  Do you get it yet?Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The question then becomes why you believe this to be notable enough for inclusion.  A prohibition on starch and caffeine seems rather trivial to me.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: A caution, an evangelical Christian website may not necessarily constitute a reliable source to Lorber.  We keep putting these policy links up in hopes you will read them.  Also, seriously, read WP:SOAP. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Please read dab's statement directly above this new section and then read the summary directly below this section.  I'm through telling you the same thing over and over again.Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious practice food 

message: For background - Here is a link that explains how the Old testament plus the new testament plus the new revelation together forms the new bible.
I quote: "Just as the NEW TESTAMENT belongs to the OLD TESTAMENT and only together make up the BIBLE known until now, it is God’s Holy Will that the present Bible be completed through this NEW BIBLE for the New Era on Earth, thus forming the Holy Trilogy.
http://www.newbible.de/newbible_notes_en.html"
This is not from a Christian site, but from a Lorber supporter site.
This is how strong they place emphasis on Scripture, and there are other links that also explains their view that there is no contradiction between Lorber's work and scripture.
(Torchrunner (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read dab's statement directly above this new section and then read the summary directly below this section.  I'm through telling you the same thing over and over again.Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The new bible

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Gospel of John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223224850/http://www.merkurpublishing.com/Lorber_Great_Gospel_John_New_Revelation.htm to http://www.merkurpublishing.com/Lorber_Great_Gospel_John_New_Revelation.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified