Hello my name is Jordan. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your website and a lot of the teachings it has on there. It has brought a lot of clarity to things which I had difficulty understanding growing up. For example, the disproving of the trinity, eternal torment, and the restitution of all things. When I had questions about these things growing up I would only receive mundane unsatisfying answers such as “Well, we don't understand the trinity but that's what is in The Bible” or “Yes Hell and the Lake of Fire are very scary to think about but we must understand that God is a just God but he cannot be in the presence of sin so Hell is a necessary judgement of those who don't repent”.
I grew up in a non-denominational church (which contrary to the name is a denomination in itself!) that would teach of God's love and mercy but would preordain the majority of mankind to eternal suffering. So again thank you for sharing these revelations you have received from God about these matters as they have helped me to grasp much better God's nature.
However, there was one thing on your website that was a bit troubling to me and seemed inconsistent. I may be nitpicking too much so please do clarify if I am misunderstanding something or making a mountain out of a molehill. In your teaching section, you have a teaching that is written by Victor and Paul about The Book of Luke being corrupted with the deathbed conversion tale about one of the thieves on the cross at first mocking Jesus and then miraculously coming to a repentance in heart and asking Jesus to “remember me when You come into Your kingdom” and Jesus replies with “Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise”. Now we can both agree this is not consistent with Jesus' teaching where He says He will spend 3 days in Hades, not Heaven.
Now on to the inconsistency, in your falsehood exposed section you have a subsection dedicated to the Jehovah's Witnesses and in that subsection a topic of “Jesus Christ - A Great Man or Jehovah God?” and in it an exchange between Victor and A JW named Ruth takes place. Victor proceeds to answers Ruth's objections about Jesus being God because in her religion's translation of The Bible it says “God cannot lie and God cannot die”. Victor replies to her objection about God being unable to die in this portion that I will copy and paste,
“...Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, [the] only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (I Timothy 1:17 NWT).
You may argue that the word “incorruptible” means “inability to die,” yet Jesus died and the Scripture declared that He did not see corruption:
“For You will not leave My soul in hell; You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption” (Psalms 16:10 MKJV).
Peter refers to David's Psalm in his speech at Pentecost:
“Because You will not leave My soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:27 MKJV).
Though Christ's body was put to death, He was never dead:
“For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:18-19 MKJV).
“And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43 MKJV)..."
So therein lies my question. Why do you have a section that teaches the entire deathbed conversion tale is a manmade story and not of God but then quote the section of Luke as being spoken by Jesus as it pertains to Victor's and Ruth's conversation when in another section you say this conversation never took place?
I have thought about the possible causes of the contradiction. One: Perhaps the conversation with Ruth took place before your revelation on the book of Luke. Two: Perhaps the section Victor and Paul wrote was actually written primarily or completely by Paul and not Victor and you do not see eye to eye on The Corruption of The Book of Luke but if that were the case I do not see why Victor would sign the end of something that he did not agree with.
Again, I could be nitpicking and making something out of nothing but please do clarify for me why this seeming inconsistency is on your site