It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who are the 10 kings that rule for 1 hour with the beast?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I am just wondering, because you know that communion is from the third cup of the seder, then you should know that you are keeping Passover.
That has nothing to do with the Bible but are from later traditions.
Most likely invented after the time of Christ to compensated for there not being a temple after the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD.
So there is no reason to think that Jesus following what modern Judaism practices today.

But that's your choice, either you are a follower of the Greek Dionysus, or you are a follower of the very Jewish Jesus Christ. Which is it?
This is your cultish beliefs coming out and has nothing to do with normal Christianity.
edit on 14-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I am just wondering, because you know that communion is from the third cup of the seder, then you should know that you are keeping Passover.
That has nothing to do with the Bible but are from later traditions.
Most likely invented after the time of Christ to compensated for there not being a temple after the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD.
So there is no reason to think that Jesus following what modern Judaism practices today.

But that's your choice, either you are a follower of the Greek Dionysus, or you are a follower of the very Jewish Jesus Christ. Which is it?
This is your cultish beliefs coming out and has nothing to do with normal Christianity.
edit on 14-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Most likely? So you don't know then.

The Passover had been kept long before Jesus and long well-known in rabbinic literature long before Jesus. And no, this is not normal Christianity.

Hey, it's your choice to believe what you want. But if you are going to follow something, at least know the history of it. And this denial of anything Jewish related means that you are going to have to find something else that it came from, and if it's not Jewish then it has to be from one of the Greek cults. I am guessing that your brand is from the cult of Dionysus.

If you say Jesus was Greek and used Greek symbolism, then he was in the cult of Dionysus, and so if your religion is based on that.....

Cult of Dionysus

So don't blame me if the pagans pick up this one and say your form of Christianity is exactly that. You are the one pushing Greek identity and traditions.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Most likely? So you don't know then.
All we have is later writings, from after the period when Jesus lived on earth, concerning these specific Passover traditions that you are talking about, so there is no proof that they existed at the time of the Last Supper.

And this denial of anything Jewish related means that you are going to have to find something else that it came from, and if it's not Jewish then it has to be from one of the Greek cults.
What I believe or don't believe cannot somehow retroactively change history as to where the things came from that Jesus said and did.

If you say Jesus was Greek and used Greek symbolism, then he was in the cult of Dionysus, and so if your religion is based on that.....
I don't say that.
There are two things, Passover practices that existed at the time of Christ, and Passover practices today by people who were taught them much later from books.
You can't say that the second influenced the first, that is backwards from how things work.

You are the one pushing Greek identity and traditions.
I'm just recognizing the validity of the New Testament which was written in the Greek language.
You seem to think that somehow the New Testament is pagan because it is "too Greek".
edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Most likely? So you don't know then.
All we have is later writings, from after the period when Jesus lived on earth, concerning these specific Passover traditions that you are talking about, so there is no proof that they existed at the time of the Last Supper.

And this denial of anything Jewish related means that you are going to have to find something else that it came from, and if it's not Jewish then it has to be from one of the Greek cults.
What I believe or don't believe cannot somehow retroactively change history as to where the things came from that Jesus said and did.

If you say Jesus was Greek and used Greek symbolism, then he was in the cult of Dionysus, and so if your religion is based on that.....
I don't say that.
There are two things, Passover practices that existed at the time of Christ, and Passover practices today by people who were taught them much later from books.
You can't say that the second influenced the first, that is backwards from how things work.

You are the one pushing Greek identity and traditions.
I'm just recognizing the validity of the New Testament which was written in the Greek language.
You seem to think that somehow the New Testament is pagan because it is "too Greek".
edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I am saying that if you have no Jewish identity for a religion that Jesus followed, and He wasn't Christian, then you are going to have to find the religion that Jesus did follow.

If He wasn't Jewish and as you think, Greek, then a religious order within Greek mythology was what He followed. The only one that comes close enough to your definition of "Outside of Judaism" is the cult of Dionysus.

I am saying this, and as pagans have pointed out, that Christians who fail to recognize the already established Jewish tradition and religion that Jesus came from, by saying Jesus followed another one from Greek mythology, are therefore in essence pagans.

I am sorry, but since you can't recognize Judaism, then you have to go by another religion and what were the other religions at that time? The cults in Rome, Greece and Egypt. The pagans consistently point this out, but if you can't reconcile Jesus being Jewish with Jewish traditions, then you are going to have to reconcile Him as being from a Greek one.

Your form, and it's your form only, of Christianity, is that you have replaced the cult of Dionysus with Jesus. That's all you have done. This is not normal Christianity.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I am saying that if you have no Jewish identity for a religion that Jesus followed, and He wasn't Christian, then you are going to have to find the religion that Jesus did follow.
Jesus dressed as a Jew, and so was identifiable as such.
So, he was following whatever was the custom at that moment to be seen as conventionally "jewish".

If He wasn't Jewish and as you think, Greek, then a religious order within Greek mythology was what He followed. The only one that comes close enough to your definition of "Outside of Judaism" is the cult of Dionysus.
Most ethnic "Jews" at the time of Christ lived in the diaspora, including Jesus himself, even though he was born in Judea.
The common spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean was Greek, which most of the Jews spoke.
Aramaic was a local language of Damascus where nearby people also spoke it including a certain percentage of Judeans since it was administered by the Romans as part of Syria.

I am saying this, and as pagans have pointed out, that Christians who fail to recognize the already established Jewish tradition and religion that Jesus came from, by saying Jesus followed another one from Greek mythology, are therefore in essence pagans.
You are closer to pagans than I since you agree with them.

I am sorry, but since you can't recognize Judaism, then you have to go by another religion and what were the other religions at that time? The cults in Rome, Greece and Egypt. The pagans consistently point this out, but if you can't reconcile Jesus being Jewish with Jewish traditions, then you are going to have to reconcile Him as being from a Greek one.
Judaism in the time of Christ was reading the Torah and Prophets and going once a year to Jerusalem to bring money for the temple.
What today goes under the name, Judaism, is a way to give the old beliefs meaning without a temple, with simple practices that can be done at home.
Jesus and his contemporaries had no use for those inventions, especially since they came later.
At 35 AD, there were hundreds of priests serving the temple, plus other servers and probably things like choirs singing praises to God, all things to make the experience rewarding and meaningful to the participants.
There wouldn't have been any need for them to go through any rituals themselves.

Your form, and it's your form only, of Christianity, is that you have replaced the cult of Dionysus with Jesus. That's all you have done. This is not normal Christianity.
That is just a theory promoted by your particular cult with no substance since cult followers have no need, their worship of the cult being sufficient for "proof".
edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I am saying that if you have no Jewish identity for a religion that Jesus followed, and He wasn't Christian, then you are going to have to find the religion that Jesus did follow.
Jesus dressed as a Jew, and so was identifiable as such.
So, he was following whatever was the custom at that moment to be seen as conventionally "jewish".

If He wasn't Jewish and as you think, Greek, then a religious order within Greek mythology was what He followed. The only one that comes close enough to your definition of "Outside of Judaism" is the cult of Dionysus.
Most ethnic "Jews" at the time of Christ lived in the diaspora, including Jesus himself, even though he was born in Judea.
The common spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean was Greek, which most of the Jews spoke.
Aramaic was a local language of Damascus where nearby people also spoke it including a certain percentage of Judeans since it was administered by the Romans as part of Syria.

I am saying this, and as pagans have pointed out, that Christians who fail to recognize the already established Jewish tradition and religion that Jesus came from, by saying Jesus followed another one from Greek mythology, are therefore in essence pagans.
You are closer to pagans than I since you agree with them.

I am sorry, but since you can't recognize Judaism, then you have to go by another religion and what were the other religions at that time? The cults in Rome, Greece and Egypt. The pagans consistently point this out, but if you can't reconcile Jesus being Jewish with Jewish traditions, then you are going to have to reconcile Him as being from a Greek one.
Judaism in the time of Christ was reading the Torah and Prophets and going once a year to Jerusalem to bring money for the temple.
What today goes under the name, Judaism, is a way to give the old beliefs meaning without a temple, with simple practices that can be done at home.
Jesus and his contemporaries had no use for those inventions, especially since they came later.
At 35 AD, there were hundreds of priests serving the temple, plus other servers and probably things like choirs singing praises to God, all things to make the experience rewarding and meaningful to the participants.
There wouldn't have been any need for them to go through any rituals themselves.

Your form, and it's your form only, of Christianity, is that you have replaced the cult of Dionysus with Jesus. That's all you have done. This is not normal Christianity.
That is just a theory promoted by your particular cult with no substance since cult followers have no need, their worship of the cult being sufficient for "proof".
edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



Excuse me, but what exactly does the word diaspora mean?


di·as·po·ra [dahy-as-per-uh, dee-] Show IPA
noun
1.
( usually initial capital letter ) the scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian captivity.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) the body of Jews living in countries outside Israel.
3.
( often initial capital letter ) such countries collectively: the return of the Jews from the Diaspora.
4.
any group migration or flight from a country or region. Synonyms: dispersion, dissemination, migration, displacement, scattering. Antonyms: return.
5.
any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland, especially involuntarily, as Africans during the trans-Atlantic slave trade.


Countries OUTSIDE, so by being born in Judea means that He was not in the diaspora group. You can't be in a diaspora and be born in a country that your parents were displaced from before you were born. How does that even work? His parents were not of the diaspora and you say so yourself, they were Jews living in Judea.

What identifies a Jew is NOT dress, but CIRCUMCISION. You got two things wrong so far.

The common spoken language today in the United States in English, are you an Englishman or a Brit? It is apparent you know nothing about Judaism. And guess what, if you are Brit, then you are of the British diaspora as you were not born in the United Kingdom, correct?

And so Jesus was merely a follower of fashion, wow, just wow. I say you are following Dionysus. Nothing you are saying is convincing me otherwise. You know what, with all that stuff you keep posting, it's no wonder pagans catch on quickly to point out the pagan origins of your type of Christianity.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Further to your post, ImaFungi.

You asked if the Tribulation in Matthew 24:9 'was spoken to' or applied to Christians?

These words of Yeshua [some know him as 'Isa'] the Son of God were for ALL his followers, and these followers will include (and unite) those from the three major monotheistic faiths, and many others besides these.

I posted in one reply on this thread:


What Yeshua meant was there was going to be a false Christ [Dajjal], 'Jesus', who was going to convince the world that he was the real one, but Yeshua's followers will know that 'Jesus' is the false one, so they won't worship this 'Jesus' and the 'Jesus' followers will hate their guts for not honouring their god, and will kill them! (Yeshua's followers are Israelites and Jesus followers are Christians.) This is all part of God's plan...


It's no surprise to me that others know of this as well...
www.inter-islam.org...



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by Maigret
 


Maigret, don't worry, jmDewey says I am in a cult also.

I kept the passover tonight, yes, I am a lady who hosted a seder meal and jmDewey will reply how cultish that is, and yet, this..

And Jesus broke the bread "I am the bread of life which comes down from heaven" and then "This is my body which was broken for many".

That's the third part of the seder.

Then Jesus lifted the wine and blessed it, saying "Baruch attah Adonai eloheinu meleck ha-olam borei peri hagafen", transliterated "Blessed are you oh Lord our God, King of the universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine". And then said "Take and drink, for this is my blood of the new testament, but I will not drink of it now with you, but will drink it new with you in heaven".

Yes, us "cult" members remember the Lord's death until He comes.


Thanks for your support, WarminIndy.
(jmDewey's opinions carry no weight with me, but they do give me so many opportunities to spread the Word to others, like yourself, who can see and understand all the enormous implications!)

Like you, I do observe Passover, because it is a prescribed in detail as a holy festival, by God, within the Bible.

As Yeshua [ישוע] said, Matthew 4:4 'But he answered and said, "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" '.

It is stated that Yeshua is the 'Word of God', and so I believe he is, as the Bible says, 'manna from heaven' and it is his body as the Word, which I devour. In other words, I feast on his words!

Blood atones for sin, and in 'drinking' in his sacrifice and holding true to his sayings (which ultimately come from God, Who told him what to say!), and following him to death and beyond, if necessary, that I am washed in the sacrificial Blood of the Lamb.

The bread and the wine are merely symbols of this spiritual reality.

This source might interest you... www.amazon.com...




edit on 15/4/2014 by Maigret because: To include additional source reference.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Countries OUTSIDE, so by being born in Judea means that He was not in the diaspora group. You can't be in a diaspora and be born in a country that your parents were displaced from before you were born.
OK did I say Jesus was a diaspora Jew?
I said he lived in the diaspora, meaning outside of Judea itself.

What identifies a Jew is NOT dress, but CIRCUMCISION. You got two things wrong so far.
To the general public, just like today, if you see a person walking along dressed like a Hasidic Jew, chances are, he is a Hasidic Jew.

The common spoken language today in the United States in English, are you an Englishman or a Brit? It is apparent you know nothing about Judaism. And guess what, if you are Brit, then you are of the British diaspora as you were not born in the United Kingdom, correct?
This actually works against your position rather than supporting it.


edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

It is stated that Yeshua is the 'Word of God', and so I believe he is, as the Bible says, 'manna from heaven' and it is his body as the Word, which I devour. In other words, I feast on his words!
By "it", I assume you mean the New Testament.
The New Testament talks about someone it calls Jesus.
It never says in the New Testament that Jesus is the word of God.
It talks about the Logos and identifies it with God.
It then proceeds to describe what this Logos does, but it doesn't identify it as a person.
Now that is not to say that, in the standard English Bibles, it doesn't use the personal pronoun "he" because it does, but that is an interpretive choice by the translator because it doesn't specifically say that in The Greek.
It uses a word that can either refer to a person or a thing.

Jesus presents his analogy of his purpose against the legendary manna that the Israelites ate and then died eventually, to show that what he was providing gave eternal life, in comparison to temporary life.
He wasn't saying that he was manna.
Jesus' body was broken, which was a foretelling of his death, that through his death came life, which was the resurrection.
Jesus' word gives life, if we follow it, to be righteous.

Blood atones for sin, and in 'drinking' in his sacrifice and holding true to his sayings (which ultimately come from God, Who told him what to say!), and following him to death and beyond, if necessary, that I am washed in the sacrificial Blood of the Lamb.
The Book of Hebrews says that even according to the Law there is no remission without the shedding of blood.
This statement does not necessarily lend itself to being reversed to say that blood atones for sin.
That verse in Hebrews doesn't have the word "sin" in it.
The writer was making the point that Jesus' death meant more than just someone being killed. It was something he did to demonstrate perfect obedience to make him worthy to approach God as our High Priest, but in Heaven, the actual dwelling place of God, rather than in a building meant to serve as a representation of Heaven.
The writer was using the understanding of the temple rituals by his readers to make a metaphor to demonstrate the profound nature of Jesus' own actions and how they are superior to those things done by following a written set of instructions for ceremonial proceedings.
In those instructions were those to cleanse the utensils and furnishings of the temple to make them ceremonially clear of sins.
Jesus, in his passion, made a ceremonially appropriate condition (figuratively speaking) for his acceptance into Heaven.

I don't think that Jesus meant for us to think that we were drinking in his sacrifice by drinking wine, other than as having a thought about it.

"Washed in the blood of the Lamb" is said in Revelation of the robes, and they were actually washed by those who were wearing them.
This would be, as you said, a result from following the instructions of Jesus to the point of being martyred for that holding to a purity of character, in the symbolic world of John the Revelator.
In the real world, we aren't expected to go to a bloody death in order to have our cloths all bloody, it is just symbolic for the idea that God doesn't support compromising our principles to be popular.
Anyway, my point is that in this vision, it is talking about the people's sacrifice for Jesus' sake, not Jesus' specifically, other than as serving as a model.

The bread and the wine are merely symbols of this spiritual reality.
The reality that Jesus was killed so he could make the way that we are to follow in, being eventually resurrected from the grave as he was.
edit on 15-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Really? And you believe this?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

Really? And you believe this?
Yes, really, I believe that.
Now of course you may think differently but you may not have thought about it long enough and are stuck with doctrines that cloud your thinking so you can't read the Bible for what it is actually saying.
It really takes a conscious effort to free yourself from the indoctrinating influence of theologians who take the Bible as a data dump to mine in order to find bits to "prove" their doctrines.
I have spent a lot of time studying the history of theological controversies so I have a clue about how these things work.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


YAHUSHUA was perfectly righteous, meaning sinless, the bible says sin is trangression of the TORAH. Do the math, the church tells you law is abolished, YAHUSHUA says "Follow me and sin no more". Sin is transgression of the law. How can you stop sinning when you are taught theat you cannot sin? How can you repent when you are told sin is gone? Abolishing TORAH abolishes sin which means there is no need to repent.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

Really? And you believe this?
Yes, really, I believe that.
Now of course you may think differently but you may not have thought about it long enough and are stuck with doctrines that cloud your thinking so you can't read the Bible for what it is actually saying.
It really takes a conscious effort to free yourself from the indoctrinating influence of theologians who take the Bible as a data dump to mine in order to find bits to "prove" their doctrines.
I have spent a lot of time studying the history of theological controversies so I have a clue about how these things work.



No, you spent a lot of time studying commentaries. And you really don't know my spiritual upbringing or my theological teachings. And who are you to say we haven't thought long enough?

It doesn't matter how much you read the Bible, if you don't know the Author then you really don't know what the Author is saying. Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith, unless you know Jesus, then you are simply reading what others had to say about him.

The letter kills, but the Spirit brings to life. Without the Spirit, you can read all day long and never know what is being said. JmDewey, I think I told you before that I am a Christian mystic. That means that I believe we can have direct knowledge and understanding through direct fellowship with God. I seek what God means.

I am going to take what my God says and reveals over your commentaries. You have never said that you know Jesus in any personal way, only that you tell us about an historical figure. And then you wonder why I compare you to the cult of Dionysus. Jesus is alive and well right now, and if He is alive and well right now, then whatever He said must come to pass before the end, must come to pass.

"You men of Galilee, why do you stand here gazing, this SAME Jesus you see ascending will return again in the same way". He's coming back but until then, what He said will happen, will happen. Did you see Him come back like He left? Then it's not the end yet.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

It is stated that Yeshua is the 'Word of God', and so I believe he is, as the Bible says, 'manna from heaven' and it is his body as the Word, which I devour. In other words, I feast on his words!
By "it", I assume you mean the New Testament.
The New Testament talks about someone it calls Jesus.
It never says in the New Testament that Jesus is the word of God.


Did you really just say that?


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Someone the Bible "calls" Jesus? No, you are not Christian.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stok3th3fir3
 

. . . the bible says sin is transgression of the TORAH.
The King James Version says,
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

which isn't exactly accurate.
A better translation is the NIV,

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

that means having no law.
It doesn't mention the Torah specifically.
The writer is talking about keeping yourself pure and doing what is right.
I don't think that Christians need to look to the Torah to figure out how to do that.

Do the math, the church tells you law is abolished . . .
Not my church, which is the Seventh Day Adventist. There is a moral law which abides. The ceremonial law was fulfilled and no longer is needed as far as practicing. What is done away with is the curse from not keeping the whole thing.

How can you stop sinning when you are taught that you cannot sin?
You are basing this on logic applied to a misunderstanding. Specifically what I mentioned, a faulty old translation, or one that is not easily understood today.
It doesn't literally say that "sin is the transgression of the law" in the original Greek.
Once you get that, then you will see that your question is not appropriate.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

"You men of Galilee, why do you stand here gazing, this SAME Jesus you see ascending will return again in the same way". He's coming back but until then, what He said will happen, will happen. Did you see Him come back like He left? Then it's not the end yet.
What you are quoting is from Acts, and not something Jesus said.
That is not a literal, word for word translation, leaving part of it out that would make it understandable.
The man in white is saying that in the way that Jesus was lifted up into the sky, that same mode of transportation, will continue to take him to Heaven.

That means that I believe we can have direct knowledge and understanding through direct fellowship with God. I seek what God means.
The same thing happens with me.
I don't always agree with whatever commentators say, but there is a lot of useful information about what the written word means.
You have to understand what the words are really saying before you can make an interpretation.
If you try without understanding what the writer was trying to say, your interpretation will be wrong.
God can give people an insight beyond words but I think that those revelations happen when you can appreciate them and see the context and where it fits.
edit on 16-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Did you really just say that?
Someone the Bible "calls" Jesus? No, you are not Christian.
"Jesus", rather than some other name that certain users on this forum like to claim is his "real" name.
And Yes, I did say that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus is the word of God.
There is no verse that says that.
I realize that people try to use logic with a faulty interpretive translation to "prove" that it means that.
You quoted some verses but can you walk us through those steps of logic that you use on them to come to your conclusion?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So if you look at what you posted, sin is lawlessness which is breaking the law, that law is TORAH, the same law YAHUSHUA followed, the same law that SHAUL followed, and the same law that the disciples followed. It doesn't matter how you twist the verse, it says SIN IS TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW, YAHUWAHs law is called the TORAH. The laws of Moshe is YAHUWAHs law. You call others confused but the verse you quoted from NIV is saying the same thing, it's obvious. The NIV copyright is also owned by the same company who owns the satanic bible, research it and chew on that. They cannot serve two masters and anybody who would print a satanic book certainly does not serve YAHUWAH, but serves satan. NIV cannot be taken as doctrinally sound because of this fact. Step out of confussion my friend lack of knowledge is a perilous thing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by stok3th3fir3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

stok3th3fir3
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So if you look at what you posted, sin is lawlessness which is breaking the law, that law is TORAH, the same law YAHUSHUA followed, the same law that SHAUL followed, and the same law that the disciples followed. It doesn't matter how you twist the verse, it says SIN IS TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW, YAHUWAHs law is called the TORAH. The laws of Moshe is YAHUWAHs law.


You have to remember, jmDewey is into Replacement Theology.
I don't know if he is interested in British Israelism though.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join