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.

 

I know who the Antichrist is!

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

The Illuminati believe that they're descendants of Jesus? Really! I'd never heard that.



It's the Thirteenth Bloodline, the Merovingian line, descended from Merovee (an ancient French king). Some people actually have that line on RootsWeb. It's that particular bloodline that makes that claim.

Run a Google search on it. You'd be surprised, probably, how many people have info on this stuff--and I think some of it is on the Cutting Edge website.




posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by resistance

The Illuminati believe that they're descendants of Jesus? Really! I'd never heard that.



It's the Thirteenth Bloodline, the Merovingian line, descended from Merovee (an ancient French king). Some people actually have that line on RootsWeb. It's that particular bloodline that makes that claim.

Run a Google search on it. You'd be surprised, probably, how many people have info on this stuff--and I think some of it is on the Cutting Edge website.


So I realize just by making the claim they are blaspheming Jesus, since he never married. But to then do everything that Jesus said NOT to do, and to worship the one who Jesus said is our worst enemy who wants only to like, kill and destroy? They must actually be ashamed of their supposed roots, yes?

I'd never heard this. I'll have to look into this some more. Thanks for the tip.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Hi Resistance:

You seem very sure of yourself by claiming that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (aka "jeezuzz") "never married". How do you come up with that one?

How do you explain John 20:13-20? "Sir, they have taken away "the body of my husband" (Gr. he Ptoma Kuriou Mou) and I do not know where they have laid him out..."

The King James Version uses a kind of contemporary Shakespearean Romeo-and-Juliet Language ("saw you my lord?" = husband) of 1611: "they have moved the body of my lord..."

Also the Talmudic law plainly states: "No man may be called Rabbi unless married."

Mark's Gospel calls R. Yehoshua "rabbi" (transliterated from the Aramaic) and John's gospel has words placed into Miryam ha Megedelleh's mouth, viz. Rabbouni !

Since the tendency is to change Hebraisms into Hellenisms (i.e. transit from "Rabbi" to "didaskale" or "kurios") and not the other way around, we may assume that the Rabinnic titles afforded R. Yehoshua were probably part of the more original kernel of tradition, even though it has been established of late by scholars studying this subject that the more formal Rabbi titles were not generally imposed until after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in AD 70, when Pharasaic Rebbes were the only ones left standing in the Diaspora, the Saduccees (i.e. the sons of Zadok, or Zadukkim) having been killed off in Jerusalem in the Revolt.

So if the title Rabbi was applied to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef in his lifetime, he probably was in fact married, coupled with the predeliction for the Davidds to raise large families in order to re-surrect the "tabernacle of David which is fallen" in the last days (see Amos chapter 9) by producing sons for the throne of an independent Jewish Daviddic Kingdom.

And R. Yeshoshua seems to have been a David from the Tribe of Judah ("son of David, have mercy upon me!) awaiting the time when his bloodline would have replaced the Herodian Saduccean family (i.e. the Macabbean Hashmoneans) who although Levites, after BC 104 started calling themselves "kings" ("you will be unto me a Kingdom OF priests" as they took the verse to read) with the Davids out of power since the Babylonian Exile of 587 BC.

Just a thought.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
has anyone contacted Mr. Solana ? maybe he has an office in NYC you can contact ?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
i had a dream about Vladimir Putin hiding his coat of arms which was 3 beasts with a crown on each head so thats why he is in my spotlight for the antichrist.
The little Horn, who will attack Israel from the North.
Its not going to be Bush because the majority do not like him.
Imagine how many nations would be happy to see Israel USA UK defeated, after all these bogus wars, Putin could join the war when all resources fighting China N.Korea and who ever GOD knows and become hero. He is a wily strong leader, Just a thought?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
"Imagine how many nations would be happy to see Israel USA UK defeated, after all these bogus wars,"



yeah, that would be great for international peace and the world wide economy, it would be glory days !



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I think that someone far more powerful will emerge to fill the bill as the bad guy. Maybe China's leader,or some up and coming celebrity who will seduce the world. Or it just might be that the anti christ is a mirage, and will never show up. Whatever happens, we are the authors of our own future, and if bad things happen we need only look in the mirror to see the guilty party.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It came out wrong, I am not saying that I want it to come to pass, so I hope I have not offended anyone by them remarks.
I want all humanity to have peace and thrive and be free.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Resistance:

You seem very sure of yourself by claiming that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (aka "jeezuzz") "never married". How do you come up with that one?

How do you explain John 20:13-20? "Sir, they have taken away "the body of my husband" (Gr. he Ptoma Kuriou Mou) and I do not know where they have laid him out..."

The King James Version uses a kind of contemporary Shakespearean Romeo-and-Juliet Language ("saw you my lord?" = husband) of 1611: "they have moved the body of my lord..."

Also the Talmudic law plainly states: "No man may be called Rabbi unless married."

Mark's Gospel calls R. Yehoshua "rabbi" (transliterated from the Aramaic) and John's gospel has words placed into Miryam ha Megedelleh's mouth, viz. Rabbouni !

Since the tendency is to change Hebraisms into Hellenisms (i.e. transit from "Rabbi" to "didaskale" or "kurios") and not the other way around, we may assume that the Rabinnic titles afforded R. Yehoshua were probably part of the more original kernel of tradition, even though it has been established of late by scholars studying this subject that the more formal Rabbi titles were not generally imposed until after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in AD 70, when Pharasaic Rebbes were the only ones left standing in the Diaspora, the Saduccees (i.e. the sons of Zadok, or Zadukkim) having been killed off in Jerusalem in the Revolt.

So if the title Rabbi was applied to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef in his lifetime, he probably was in fact married, coupled with the predeliction for the Davidds to raise large families in order to re-surrect the "tabernacle of David which is fallen" in the last days (see Amos chapter 9) by producing sons for the throne of an independent Jewish Daviddic Kingdom.

And R. Yeshoshua seems to have been a David from the Tribe of Judah ("son of David, have mercy upon me!) awaiting the time when his bloodline would have replaced the Herodian Saduccean family (i.e. the Macabbean Hashmoneans) who although Levites, after BC 104 started calling themselves "kings" ("you will be unto me a Kingdom OF priests" as they took the verse to read) with the Davids out of power since the Babylonian Exile of 587 BC.

Just a thought.



I think this is completely off-topic. I don't know why the moderator doesn't delete this. If I were to insert something defending my Christian, King James Only views in the blatant way you have inserted your opinions here that are completely off-topic -- I'd be called up shortly and the thread would be closed down abruptly.

Moderator, how about some fairness here? If I respond to this that means I'm off-topic too.

But I will anyway. I'm King James Only. Why? Because I believe God DID give us a Bible we can believe and trust. After studying the history of the Bible, it's become plain to me that the KJB is God's Word preserved as in Psalm 12:6,7 -- The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserave them from this generation for ever.

It's also plain to me that the Bibles that came before the KJB were incomplete, imperfect, but still annointed of God. KJB was the culmination final finished product (purified seven times). Anything which has come AFTER the KJB is a satanic perversion designed to obfuscate and confuse, make peope think there is no Bible that we can believe and trust. Also all these other perversions agree with the JW's Bible on Jesus, take away his role as Creator God that the KJB claims for Him.

Now watch this thread get closed down.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Remember: Before Christ was born, people thought the messiah was going to be like a warrior king who would throw off the oppressive shackles of the romans using conventional (war) means. In spirit they were right, in the physical they were wrong.

You guys may be looking for something in the physical that actually manifests in the spiritual.

The same goes for Christ's return.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
ever read or study the history of the KJB?
Constantine?
Council of Nicea?
330 A.D.?

If you see someone who in any way shape or form bashes the KJB, maybe they know something you don't, and would be wiser if you were to find out what it is they know instead of blindly defending that which is not fully known. Sometimes that which goes against our understanding is more true than the understanding itself.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Master Wu
ever read or study the history of the KJB?
Constantine?
Council of Nicea?
330 A.D.?

If you see someone who in any way shape or form bashes the KJB, maybe they know something you don't, and would be wiser if you were to find out what it is they know instead of blindly defending that which is not fully known. Sometimes that which goes against our understanding is more true than the understanding itself.



Mr. Wu -- Darned right I've studied the history of the KJB. Would I not want to know about how God preserved his Word? It's an amazing and wonderful story.

As to Constantine and the Council of Nicea -- that's not Bible. That's just stuff about the early Catholic church. The KJB is not tied to the Catholic church. The manuscripts used for the KJB were those of the common people, not so old as the manuscripts the Catholics used for their Bible, but more numerous and more in agreement with each other. Further, God assembled a group of 52 of the most brilliant linquists the world has ever produced, men of devotion who knew they were presented with a high and holy task to translate the scriptures. In addition, before these men had come other godly and annointed men, some like William Tyndale who had suffered martyrdom, and had produced translations also using the same manuscripts. The bibles that came before KJB were incorporated into the KJB and Tyndale's stuff almost intact. The KJB translators were so careful to be exactly literally correct in every word and even provided italicized words to indicate whether they inserted words for meaning. As I said, I do believe God DID give us a Bible we can believe and trust, and it's obvious to me that he did it with the KJB.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
resistance--AMEN!!!

Whoever says Jesus was married is yanking your chain. These modern "Bibles" are nothing more than perversions. Some versions refer to Joseph as Jesus' father (he was Jesus' STEPfather, as Jesus had no human father), for example. Some claim that the number of the Beast is 616 instead of 666. So I'm not surprised that some would claim that Jesus was married.

I don't care what the Talmud says regarding rabbis and marriage. The Talmud is not God's Word! I thought "rabbi" meant "teacher" anyhow.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
amthyst: I don't get the Joseph as stepfather thing. Never heard that one before.

If you're adopted you don't call your dad "stepdad". I'd say Joseph was more of a predesignated adoptive parent so-to-speak than a "step-father" don't you think?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
amthyst: I don't get the Joseph as stepfather thing. Never heard that one before.

If you're adopted you don't call your dad "stepdad". I'd say Joseph was more of a predesignated adoptive parent so-to-speak than a "step-father" don't you think?


Sure, but the King James version makes it clear and differentiates. Instead of "his [Jesus'] parents" in Luke 2:43, it says the following: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

I was adopted by my own stepfather.
I don't know what the custom was back then.

Either way, Jesus at least had a father figure.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
An important point to consider is that we will be able to recognize the antichrist when he comes because:

1. He will suffer a mortal wound to the head and be healed.
2. He will be a real good talker.
3. He will bring "Whirled peas."
4. He will have a sidekick who will call fire down from Heaven in the sight of man and force everyone to take the mark of the beast and to worship the beast and his image.
5. The masses of humanity will be greatly deceived by this antichrist and will follow after him and wonder after him and just adore him.
6. He will make war against the saints and "prevail." The saints will lose their heads.

Just a few things the Bible says about the antichrist.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I wonder what Javiers middle name is?

I'll bet is has 6 letters... His first and last name have 6 letters a piece...


666

[edit on 13-10-2005 by noslenwerd]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
I wonder what Javiers middle name is?

I'll bet is has 6 letters... His first and last name have 6 letters a piece...


666

[edit on 13-10-2005 by noslenwerd]
good point!



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Hi Resistance:

You seem a little muddled by my post. And it's KJV ("King James Version" of 1611) and not "KJB" which makes it sound almost like a Russian Intelligence Agency.

Perhaps you need a quick brush up in your basic bible knowledge (and perhaps a beginners Hebrew and Greek class or two?)

The so-called King James Version or KJV has undergone three major revisions since its compilation in 1604 and its first printed edition in 1611, and its text as it appears today in English incorporates more than 90,00 critical-textual changes from the 1611 English version.

So my question to you is: Which King James Version therefore do you believe is the inspired one, then ?

The manuscripts which were used to produce the so-called Erasmus “Textus Receptus” of 1521 which later morphed into the King James Version in England were of the so-called Byzantine and Western family of MSS only:

These MSS include (A) the Codex Alexandrinus, the Byzantine family type text from c. AD 430 and also (D) the so-called Codex Bezae-Biglot, a Western Family text type written in Latin and Greek dated around 530 AD.

These represent fairly poor text types on which to build an entire belief system upon.

Unfortunately the poor compilers of the KJV did not even know of the existence of the later discovered manuscript copies in Greek of the NT e.g. the Codex Vaticanus (B), the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), the Codex Freer-Washingtoniensis (W), or the Codex Ephraemi (C) all which would have helped their edition, neither were they aware of the major papyri we now possess e.g. p45 p52 p66 or p75.

So your KJV is greatly flawed: the King James Version did not have a very wide range of manuscripts from which to work: the compilers did the best they could by merely patching together what they thought was the text of "the word of god" from what materials lay at hand.

So my question to you would be: How can you possibly call such a patch job the “word of god” ?

I am assuming of course that you must know by now that the “bible” was not originally written in English. Or maybe you did not know that.

The “old testament” was written without vowels in paleo-Hebrew (e.g. see the poetical portions of the book of Judges like the Song of Deborah, or the Book of Amos chapters 1-8, or the poetry found in proto Isaiah-chapters 1-39, or even take certain ancient Psalms stolen from the Canaanite liturgies e.g. Ps. 29, etc.) middle Hebrew (e.g. Psalms 1, or trito-Isaiah beginning at chapter 40, or Zechariah chapters 9-12 etc.) and late almost Mishnaic Hebrew (e.g. Ecclesiastes-Qoheleth) as well as Aramaic (e.g. parts of Daniel (e.g. chapter 7) and parts of Ezra).

The “new testament” was written down probably originally between AD 60 and AD 130 in various styles of “koine Greek” ranging from the childish and ignorant (e.g. Mark’s gospel’s baby Greek grammar or the impossible Greek grammatical howlers and choppy Greek found in the Book of Revelation chapters 4 to 19 etc.) to fairly fluent and even downright stylish at times (e.g. the author of Luke’s gospel--whoever he was----and some of the Greek epistles attrributed to Saul of Tarsus aka "Pau", e.g. "To the Romans" and the Epistle of I Corinithians etc.).

Again, I would suggest you take a Greek and a Hebrew course. Since after all, if you cannot read the various contradictory texts of "the bible" in their original languages you will forever be writing nonsense like your thread to me, and think about it:

How can you possibly even believe what you cannot even read?

Just a thought.



[edit on 13-10-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The writer of Luke was named Lucius. He was one of those blessed and sent out on missionary work by Christ himself.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join