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.

 

zeitgeist debunked and we still dont care

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rtbchris
Here is a link to site that critically examine all of the movie's major claims:

www.preventingtruthdecay.org...


Great job with this website! I would really like to see the filmmakers retract their claims. IMO Its should be done if they wish to maintain future credibility, I think there is real talent there and I hope to see more movies from them.

I know a lot of people wanted this movie to be true, I know how you feel, I want there to be a roman record of the crucification found tomorrow, but its probably not going to happen. these filmmakers sold us movie with NO original sources listed for these claims! they basically told us " its cool, Jordan Maxwell said it, please dont go look it up "
zeitgeistmovie.com...

of course thats a simplification, but they didnt list one original source for their historical text claims only heavily biased books from the 20th century!

I do like how the site you list goes through all the other aspects of this too, there is a lot of info there, Id like to see an intelligent attempt to refute it all.
one thing is certain though, the movies claims have been thoroughly refuted, as it says on the site:
"Your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts"



[edit on 30-8-2007 by Amenti]




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Wow, the 'preventingtruthdecay.org' site just goes to further prove my point made on the last page, that the only proof religious fanatics have that the bible/whatever religious text is true is those books themselves and their own writings.

So many 'responses' said just this: "which pre-christian source shows/proves this?' Again, everything is based upon the christian sources, if its not or it is from a source they believe to be false it is not true to them, which makes EVERYTHING besides their religion false to them. It doesn't matter what anyone says about anything to religious people, if their bible says something is so then it must be true.

All the sources actually used to disprove the film are, again, all religious texts relating to or from the bible. And the few 'scholars' they have to disprove things could be about as real as your precious 'jesus' or whatever you believe in.

The only thing any of us knows for sure is that we are real, the world around us is real, that everyday the sun will rise, that darkness will come at night, that the seasons will change and we will grow old and eventually die.

I personally can't believe something that has no basis for fact, and that is in reality the main cause of almost all of the worlds problems. And if you would like to debate religion causing so many problems, lets have at it because I've got piles of evidence on the church's nightmarish handling of the native people of Canada through the residential schools they ran, and how about the pedophile priests, which is in reality just the tip of the iceberg, go download 'conspiracy of silence' off of the torrents, and watch that, how about your nazi pope right now, how about the vatican and their missionaries in Africa telling people not to use condoms because they are 'evil' or whatever, so that they can help spread HIV and kill off more black people because the christian/catholic religion is racist, everyone with brains in their heads knows it.

You religious idiots are going to destroy this world so that you can all have your 'armageddon' and your second coming of your fake savior. Will you all hold your bibles and pray and thank jesus for killing you when the mental rejects in charge of the nukes finally decide to de-materialize you? I bet you will.

Please kick start your brains and wake up and join the fight now before its too late.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
EDIT: took out personal jab

Now explain what would prevent me from saying that all of the sources that Zeitgeistmovie.com list are God hatin' agenda pushers and therefore cannot be trusted? Isnt that exactly the same thing as saying that christians were the ones who refuted it so it cant be trusted?

Would you retort with something like, well its different because they are right, and i like what they had to say. Well, as anyone that goes through this thread will see, this is not an issue of
religious or non religious fervor , The fact is that with the Christ similarity issue they (zeitgeist) claim something that ANYONE can verify or debunk by going through the ancient texts and simply reading the accounts themselves, (something they dont even claim to have done btw) Its either right or its wrong, either Krishna was said to have died on a cross and rose for our sins or not. Its a matter of historical record. that means that you could be a Christian or an atheist and find out if its true or not. please stop giving this Christians cant research stuff crap, its would hold up in court and it shouldn't hold up here.




[edit on 30-8-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Why make such a fuss over the religous portions of this movie? Is not the entire motive behind the 9/11 Truth Movement is to promote free thought? Why am I being told I am wrong, just because this portion opposes what you have been raised and bred to believe?

Dont get offended please, I mean no harm, just offering a point I haven't seen brought up in awhile here.


I wanted to touch on something else, I dont know, but how can you seriously believe these "ancient texts"? Are these not the texts that are not even translated %100? For instance, the Torah cannot be translated %100 because it lacks vowels. Can this not be the same with any other ancient texts? Is it not so unbelelievable that the ancient texts were possibly altered back in the day? Or even that the ancient texts that directly correlate Jesus to those other dudes was destroyed and hopefully forgotten about?

Merely speculation on my end, but thoughts I wanted to bring to the table none the less.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by TetraCleric]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What cracks me up more than anything is the end of the movie. The idea of "one world" or "one world currency" is actually a fundamentalist Christian end-time interpretation of passages in the book of revelation.



Some fundamentalist evangelical Christian ideologies about the conspiracy include a prominent religious element based on prophecies in the Book of Revelation about the coming of the Anti-Christ. They assert that agents of Satan are involved in deceiving humanity into accepting an international demonic order that has Satan at the core of worship. These beliefs often include explicit millenarianism. Other ideologies do not have a religious component, and view the concept of "serving Satan" metaphorically. Compare Pat Robertson's The New World Order [19][20]to William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse [21], both listed under "Literature" below . The fundamentalist evangelical Christian view regarding the expected events leading to the implementation of the New World Order and the emergence of the Anti-Christ as well as the subsequent Battle of Armageddon and Second Coming is exhaustively summarized in the 1998 book Final Warning: The History of the New World Order by David Allen Rivera: [22].

FROM Wikipedia "New World Order (conspiracy)"


Also, the whole section on "RFID" the ability to track individuals is also considered to be a "mark of the beast" by some fundamentalist Christian's interpretation of another passage in Revelation


"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18).



The influential consumer advocate has written a new book warning her fellow Christians that radio frequency identification may evolve to become the "mark of the beast" -- meaning the technology is a sign that the end-times are drawing near.

"My goal as a Christian (is) to sound the alarm," said Albrecht, in a conversation over tea at a high-end grocery store.

Albrecht has been a leading opponent of RFID, which is fast becoming a part of passports and payment cards, and is widely expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods. RFID chips contain unique identification codes, and can be read at varying distances with special reader devices.

FROM Wired Magazine - RFID: Sign of the (End) Times?


So I don't get it... The beginning tries to disprove Christianity, but the movie inadvertently finishes by supporting some very Fundamentalist Christian interpretation of end time.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Howdy guys,

Here are a couple sites that show the accuracy of scripture, aside from scripture itself.

www.xenos.org...
www.leaderu.com...
www.gotquestions.org...

I think zeitgeist jacked up part one something fierce, but I am on board with pt 2 & 3. Hopefully the above links if you read them in their entirety will be enough to show at least the physical existence of Christ, but if its not enough for you thats ok too. Just my two cents. Peace.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekin
 


Just remember what you said when the "one world currency" becomes a reality because it will.

Just remember what you said when we are "forced to wear RFID like" tags so that the "one world" government can track us. (FYI they can do that already via your cell phones. Most new cellphones have GPS chip in them).

Just remember what you said when WWIII the final war comes and you are drafted to fight in the MiddleEast

You think that 911 was anything? Virginia Tech massacre? Darfur massacre? Gujarat massacre? Rwandan genocide, Iraq mass graves? Congo mass graves?... North Korean concentration camps? ... holocaust...

You think Hitler's 12 Million was anything? Wait till you meet his young brother or sister.

Global Warming? Just the beginning. Katrina? it missed Louisiana by 30 miles. Tsunami? Just wait for the big one.

Even worst... Wait till the US economy crashes because it will. The great depression was nothing.

Oh... yeah that's right... The sun rises and falls.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by amenti


You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”

Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
www.tektonics.org...
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
www.thedevineevidence.com...
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
kingdavid8.com...
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
www.tektonics.org...
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
kingdavid8.com...

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER.



Are you some kind of idiot? THe Zeitgeist movie did cite sources. Justin Matyr, Temple of Luxor at Thebes, Ect.....

Jesus was a rip off. Get over it. What you are doing is the same thing christians have been doing for a long long time. Let me guess, 2+2=5, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength?


Typical Christian Moron: "Jesus is unique, any reference that sights otherwise doesn't exsist."

Please, read anceint folk lore. Just because they aren't all in one book, doesnt mean they aren't credible. You just might learn something.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karebare
Howdy guys,

Here are a couple sites that show the accuracy of scripture, aside from scripture itself.

www.xenos.org...
www.leaderu.com...
www.gotquestions.org...

I think zeitgeist jacked up part one something fierce, but I am on board with pt 2 & 3. Hopefully the above links if you read them in their entirety will be enough to show at least the physical existence of Christ, but if its not enough for you thats ok too. Just my two cents. Peace.



I've read enough about so called christian history to know that its nothing but a bunch of specious pander. Jesus wasnt real. The bottom line is why is there no outside sources from the bible that confirm this man was real? No other so called historical person has this affliction.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by cpdaman
never mind about disproving the existence of christ, how about the "signifigance" of christ, and the possibility that a person of his character and legacy is repacked in other religions and dating thousands of years back.


[edit on 10-7-2007 by cpdaman]


I am going to look for the scripture where Jesus told his disciples something to the effect of him coming before but no one recognized him, and then, you tell me what you think.....
How about that?

[edit on 11-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


i like that idea. while you're there mate, could you look up the frist chapter of John for me?

...that bit where it talks about the Word existing from the Beginning, and the Word becoming Flesh and all that stuff?

that'd be handy thanks.


these jesus myth promoters throw the baby out but keep the bath water. and then use the bath water as evidence that the baby never existed. wha??

in biblical terms: they identify the Word but deny the Flesh. What does John say about those who deny that the Word has come in the Flesh? 1 john 4.

also, re: zeitgeist's 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the mark of the beast - that is not a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of that passage. the text speaks for itself, no interpretation is required. "no one could buy or sell unless they received the mark of the beast". in apocalyptic literature, a "beast" refers to a kingdom, or empire, or state, whatever vocabulary you wish to use. it says what it says. this verse applies anytime a situation arises where a State demands that 'no one can buy or sell unless they receive the mark of that State'. simple. why? because the Truth is the same yesterday, today and forever. and there is a specific line that we are told not to cross - our bodies. we are told to NOT RECEIVE the mark IN our right hand or forehead.

if there is any 'alternative' 'interpretation' to this clear and concise verse, i would be interested to hear it.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by sollie]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sollie

also, re: zeitgeist's 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the mark of the beast - that is not a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of that passage. the text speaks for itself, no interpretation is required. "no one could buy or sell unless they received the mark of the beast". in apocalyptic literature, a "beast" refers to a kingdom, or empire, or state, whatever vocabulary you wish to use. it says what it says. this verse applies anytime a situation arises where a State demands that 'no one can buy or sell unless they receive the mark of that State'. simple. why? because the Truth is the same yesterday, today and forever. and there is a specific line that we are told not to cross - our bodies. we are told to NOT RECEIVE the mark IN our right hand or forehead.

if there is any 'alternative' 'interpretation' to this clear and concise verse, i would be interested to hear it.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by sollie]


You completely missed it! My point had nothing do to of where the interpretation comes from, just the fact that a very "Fundamentalist Christian" view of end time completes the entire movie. And this is a Fundamentalist view point. Mark of beast does not necessarily have be a physical object or even an actual image or sign. In fact, there so many debates on the book of revelation. Is it literal? figurative? hysteria? Did the author have too much spicy chicken before sleeping? not enough water? and so on a so forth...



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
so where is the debunking part?

I read the links disputing interpretations and etc. but not a single red-handed error.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
so where is the debunking part?

I read the links disputing interpretations and etc. but not a single red-handed error.


are you kidding? lets just take the Dec. 25th stuff. The movie goes on and on about how every historical figure in history was born on that date. Im sure as a 'scientist' you can see thats not a matter of interpretation, unless you can interpret the complete absence of data regarding this as admissible.
Not to mention the very person they are trying to discredit was never said to be born on that date!

but its only part of the "red handed errors" that you totally missed. you cant call things a matter of interpretation when it says nothing of the sort. let take any one of these right now right here. lets pick Horus or Krishna or whoever and start breaking down what was said in the BCE text(s) versus what the movie claims. Its very easy to do.

The most careful atheist I have met stay clear of this argument (jesus similarities in BCE 'Gods), because its clearly meant for those who choose to believe what they are told without checking it for themselves. and for them the damage is already done and nearly irreversible, and thats an intellectual shame IMO.

Please, Im just trying to get us to see we should not consider this movie or similar arguments above scrutinization because its beneficial to our paradigm if true. I am open to a serious discussion on any information anyone has, but this is not the smoking gun you want or that it claims to be.

let go back to the drawing board and see what we can find out, because It is important whichever way you look upon it.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amenti
lets just take the Dec. 25th stuff. The movie goes on and on about how every historical figure in history was born on that date. Im sure as a 'scientist' you can see thats not a matter of interpretation, unless you can interpret the complete absence of data regarding this as admissible.
Not to mention the very person they are trying to discredit was never said to be born on that date!


funny, but i thought the jury was still out, and that Jesus was never confirmed to have actually existed, let along proven to be born on a specific date. So much for debunking, as that would require an objective fact, not a personal interpretation. next...


Originally posted by Amenti
lets pick Horus or Krishna or whoever and start breaking down what was said in the BCE text(s) versus what the movie claims. Its very easy to do.


easy huh? Perhaps easy to say. The study, deciphering and interpretation of ancient texts is anything but easy.


Originally posted by Amenti
I am open to a serious discussion on any information anyone has, but this is not the smoking gun you want or that it claims to be.


i never claimed a smoking gun. in fact, it was the OP (edit - just noticed YOU are the OP) that declared the entire movie was now "debunked" because of a few split hairs. Certainly not the debunking job you want, or claim to be.


Originally posted by Amenti
let go back to the drawing board and see what we can find out, because It is important whichever way you look upon it.


ok, i'll be waiting


[edit on 18-9-2007 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
funny, but i thought the jury was still out, and that Jesus was never confirmed to have actually existed, let along proven to be born on a specific date. So much for debunking, as that would require an objective fact, not a personal interpretation. next...


well then, Im sure you would agree making the absolutist statements about the Dec 25th date that the movie does is presumptuous at best, and seriously illogical. which to me falls under the category of wrong on many levels.


Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by Amenti
lets pick Horus or Krishna or whoever and start breaking down what was said in the BCE text(s) versus what the movie claims. Its very easy to do.


easy huh? Perhaps easy to say. The study, deciphering and interpretation of ancient texts is anything but easy.


not really, either its there or its not, lets take the virgin birth of Krishna


A VIRGIN BIRTH A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna as his parents bore seven previous children. Furthermore, the virgin birth was not a
new concept invented by Christians. The book of Isaiah (written about 700 B.C.) spoke of a Messiah who would be born of a virgin. This prophecy
was in circulation 700 years before Jesus and at least 100 years before Krishna. (Isaiah 7:14) Critics claim Krishna was born to the virgin Maia
but according to Hindu texts, he was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva: "You have been born of the divine Devaki
and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth." Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII www.thedevineevidence.com...


the movie claims it is true. it shouldnt take a genius to find a reference to Krishnah's virgin birth right?
here is a link to the texts show me why this claim should have been made.
www.sacred-texts.com...`

EDIT:
BTW I just googled "virgin birth Krishna"
and the lady that was the personal "consultant" for the Zeitgeist movie was right there at the top. shes great.
www.truthbeknown.com...



[edit on 18-9-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amenti
well then, Im sure you would agree making the absolutist statements about the Dec 25th date that the movie does is presumptuous at best, and seriously illogical. which to me falls under the category of wrong on many levels.


I do agree. 100%. However, I still don't see how your own interpretation (by your own admission - "to me falls under the category of wrong") would in any way come close to a "debunking."

and again as others have stated, your citing of virgin birth is not valid, as the very definition of "virgin" within that context is debated - as could be understood, the meaning of such a word would differ from culture to culture.

The title of this thread is very misleading, and just ruins any credibility it might have had.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
I do agree. 100%. However, I still don't see how your own interpretation (by your own admission - "to me falls under the category of wrong") would in any way come close to a "debunking."


Ok how about "shown to be lying their asses off" in the stead of "debunking"?


Originally posted by scientist
and again as others have stated, your citing of virgin birth is not valid, as the very definition of "virgin" within that context is debated - as could be understood, the meaning of such a word would differ from culture to culture.


I very much disagree, the movie was using the term "virgin" very much in the context of "virginity"

are you , by shifting to this semantic argument conceeding there is no hisorical basis for claiming that Krishna was the product of the virgin birth that the movie claims?

if not please link or quote to the texts statemnet where I can verify a reason to see how it could possibly be interpreted as a virgin birth. As I have said over and over you cant find it, its not there. why doesnt anyone just show me and make me look stupid? I know you want to. just quote it link it whatever.
Clearly "Zeitgeist" bended the facts on this one to help shape their hypothesis.

but I certainly dont need the virgin birth thing to prove my point. there is a lot of material here to "debunk" its fertile ground for showing the hypocricy of this stuff.

I would really like to have the time to systematically show the specific claims and what they used to make it. most of them are beyond silly and shouldnt be taken seriously by people who claim to deny ignorance.

There are serious questions though that I would love to discuss, Its stimulating.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
no, Im saying that the vedic, christian, egyptian, sumerian and other types of "virginity" differ.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Zeitergeist did a very good job mixing truth with disinformation. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching it and I would like to watch it again sometime. But don't be so fooled by the parts that really were dead wrong. While I really can't argue with much of what I saw on parts two and three, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that part one did contain a lot of factual errors, as the OP has stated.
Any theologian with any amount of credibility could tell you that Jesus was NOT born on December twenty fifth. Most theologians will agree that his actual birthdate occuured somewhere between March and April...not December.
Also, as the OP has stated, many of the of other similarities to Christ cannot be verified in the ancient texts that speak of their respective deities. While some of them can...many of them cannot.
Sorry folks, but part one of Zeitergeist can be chalked up to nothing more than BS.
Now parts two and three, on the other hand, seem to be accurate to the point of being downright frightening. That is one thing that really makes me suspicious as to the motives of the producers of the movie. They mix truth with either poorly researched information or boldfaced lies purported to be "facts"
I'm also very suspicious of way they took the New World Order and tried to blame it on the very religion that has been trying to warn us about it for well over two-thousand years. Sorry folks, but I smell a rat.
And come on pepole!!!!Seriously now!!! This is ATS for cryin' out loud!!!
I may be new as a member here. But I have "lurked" in these forums for many years...long enough to know that intelligent debate requires critical thought. And I'm not seeing much critical thought on the part of many of you who continue to argue with the OP despite the information that has been brought to your attention.
I understand that some of you have a problem with christianity...and as a FORMER fundamentalist christian...I can understand why. So I can also understand why many of you really want to believe what you saw and heard in part one of Zeitergeist. All I ask is that you all do your best to pick it apart and discern what is true and what is not...especially when truth and disinformation are mixed together as well as they are in this movie.
We all have to make important decisions as to what we really believe. My message to you all is very simple. Be very careful of what you choose.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenZen

In fact, there so many debates on the book of revelation. Is it literal? figurative? hysteria? Did the author have too much spicy chicken before sleeping? not enough water? and so on a so forth...


the Spirit will anwer that if you wholeheartedly seek Him in your readings. promise.

i agree with you about zeitgeist being contradictory, but i am glad they inform the public of the possibilities.

i also agree that John did not say "no one could buy or sell unless they received an RFID implant issued from the government".

Revelation is concerned with spiritual principles. but they are not abstract principles. they are spiritual principles that relate to concrete circumstances that we can expect to occur in the world because of the testamony of Jesus. it is literal and figurative:

the greek word for mark is "charagma" which means to stamp or imprint, to stake claim or claim title to property. it was the common word for branding horses and imperial stamps. a figurative "charagma" cannot allow/prevent someone from buying or selling. it would be an oxymoron. this is the passage's denotative or literal meaning.

it also has connotative or spiritual message. the reference to the right hand and forehead is an echo from Duteronomy where the Lord God tells the Israelites to fix His commands and precepts to their hearts and minds, and fasten them to their hands and foreheads. its like when we say "oh, he's a real football fan - he lives and breathes it!". similarly the SPIRITUAL message in this passage is that people will "live and breathe" the beast to the extent that they will allow themselves to receive its "charagma" to literally buy and sell and participate in society.

if you have read Daniel you would know that "Beasts" refer to kingdoms/governments/empires.

so the passage uses figurative and literal language to convey a principle: don't let worldly governments replace God in your hearts and minds.

the whole book of revelation and the bible as a whole needs to be considered wisely. that means spiritually and concretely, and never being satisfied that we know it all. because we don't.

christians should not assume that because there is similarities between events in the world and messages in the Bible that "this must be it". rather, we are taught to 'watch', for we do not know the hour. watching means observing generally and broadly, not focusing in on one thing. this is a universe of infinite possibility. so we should remain open and watchful.

you might know all this or you might not care. sorry for the rant. i didn't want to pick on you, just make the point that the Bible can be understood. it just takes dilligent study and openness to the Spirit who will guide you into all truth. peace




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join