The Satanic Saturday

reply to post by Mabus


You can't make up your own rules of language. That passage clearly refers to Satan and the Devil as one and the same, which notwithstanding.

Satan the new name of Jesus? I believe you have been deceived.

Professing to wise they became fools.

That even the elect might be deceived.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Did you see the word "himself"? Nowhere does Christ refer to Satan as himself. Satan is the evil one, the adversary. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Satan is a defeated foe. He is cast out. Christ is the resurrected Son of God. He will return in glory.

That is the point at face value Satan did not refer to himself as the former Lord Jesus Christ. And at face value Lord Jesus Christ did not refer to himself as his new name (Satan). Neither did anyone else in the bible refer to him either way at face value.

You need to not dwell on the FACE of the whole earth. If you do, then you are snared. Read Luke 21 about the snare.

When you are outside yourself you may speak about yourself as if you are not who you are mentioning at face value. It is a new way for a man better than evil (the world) and better than good (God). If you will not overcome evil (the world) and good (God), then you the lake of fire has power over.

Is not a son better than his father? If you do not accept being better than God, then you are fit for the lake of fire already.

First time poster here...

im also going blind and deaf as well but funny how i see and hear things that most people dont bother to look at or hear...

Saturn or satanturn = The Lord of the Rings...

by the way way notice the titles of these movies?

The Lord of the Rings
Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Two Towers (2002)-whoa 9-11
Return of the King (2003)-whoa could it be satan?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
You can't make up your own rules of language. That passage clearly refers to Satan and the Devil as one and the same, which notwithstanding.

Satan the new name of Jesus? I believe you have been deceived.

Professing to wise they became fools.

That even the elect might be deceived.

The elect? Those are the damned.

Well, if you are written in the book of life you'd know you aren't the elect, no, you'd know you received Jesus' new name through overcoming. The elect does not implying they recieved anything!

Why would you rather be the elect than the reward reciever?

Again, if you read at face value you have not overcome the world. You must stand out. Noah stood out and apart. Doing what the world does with the way they read the bible is an obvious implication you did not overcome the world (evil).

I see things different than you because I am apart. I stand out. I come quickly. I am better than the good and the evil.

reply to post by Mabus


Better than God? That's what this is all about, isn't it? Ego. To exalt yourself above the throne of heaven.

Matthew 19

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Like,

"I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me."

Isaiah 14

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Quibbling about the use of Lucifer and son of the morning in the KJV aside, this passage refers to satan and his end. Christ is eternal, has always been and will always be. Satan is a created being, with a beginning and an end. The one is not the other in any way, shape, or form.

you know the Baphomet has nothing to satan, if anything its god... en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus never said He was Christ. He never said he was satan, either. But what did those closest to Him say?

Mark 8

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Matthew 16

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

His eternal name is Christ. His earthly name was Jesus.

If the new name of Jesus is satan, how do you explain these next passages?

Mark 8

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 22

2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

Satan betray himself? Your argument just doesn't hold up.


[edit on 23-10-2008 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by Mabus
I am better than the good and the evil.

Good and evil are perspectives based on human intellect.
To me, God is evil, because to believe in all his attributes would suggest that he made us to be who we are and then sends us to Hell for who we are. Can you say 'Hitler x 100'?
Another person may have the perspective that he is all powerful and yet chooses to love us mere humans. To that person, God is as good as 'candy x 100'.
Just as candy tastes good to some and bad to others, good and evil are completely based on perspective and in most cases if the person or entity is in agreement with our ways of life.
I also suggest some humility.
No human is 'better' than another, it's all based on our perspectives and opinions.
Is the color blue better than red? To you, maybe, but not to all.
Also, such arrogance takes away your ability to learn.
After all, you're perfect, right? You can't get any better therefor you can't learn.
You cap yourself off.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Isaiah 14

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Quibbling about the use of Lucifer and son of the morning in the KJV aside, this passage refers to satan and his end. Christ is eternal, has always been and will always be. Satan is a created being, with a beginning and an end. The one is not the other in any way, shape, or form.


No, this passage refers to King Nebuchadnezzar.

The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” (Isaiah 14:4) The description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” (Isaiah 14:15) Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil (I’m sure some may debate this). Regardless, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” (Isaiah 14:16) Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.

The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

reply to post by TruthParadox

good and evil are completely based on perspective and in most cases if the person or entity is in agreement with our ways of life.

Of course, I disagree. Do you know the difference between ethics and morals? Ethics are universal, morals are culturally specific. Without God, all you have left are morals without any fundamental basis.

Ever heard of The Truth Project? Dr. Del would say you think "the box" and "the stuff" in it is all there is. Materialism vs. Spiritualism. Aristotle vs. Plato. This issue was decided long ago, but the discussion goes on.

reply to post by Kailassa


Prophecy has more than one application. I've heard the Nebuchadnezzar claim, and don't discount it. However, I believe there is more to it than that.

Icarus Rising,

Some clear cut pointers:

The guy didnt call him Jesus. He called him Good Master.

The Person (formerly named Jesus) is not good is what that quote is implying. Also, know, that does not implicate the Person (formerly named Jesus) is evil or is good. Since you should recall him implicating he overcame the world (evil). So that leaves us with best or better the Person (formerly named Jesus) is indeed without even saying it, doesn't it?

Like the other poster pointed out when I state I am better than good and better than evil, that I am arrogant in his opinion. Do you see why the Person (formerly named Jesus) did not state Himself as best or better, since he would be called arrogant just as I have?

And note:

He sure didn't exclude being best or better.

Also:

"I will be "like" the most High."

"Yet thou shalt be brought down "to" hell, "to" the "sides of" the pit.

^^like? Lucifer is better than the most High if like the most High. And I sure would rather be brought down "to" hell rather than enter it. "Most High" is implying a cap with no bettering occuring.

And to the other poster: Better continues unlike best and unlike good. Best implies final and set. So when I say I am better I cap off not myself since I am overcoming, always, with the Person's new naming (Satan/Michael).

Lastly:

"Mark 8
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him."

^^I sure would want no man telling any man I am Christ since I am not any such thing I am distancing myself from.

^^Did you ever think that is the implication with that quote, Icarus Rising?

Again, you get no clear cut telling "the" Person (formerly named Jesus) himself says that can indicate he is Christ.

"The" Person (formerly named Jesus) stood outside his new name.

With this quote you see "the" Person (formerly named Jesus) rebuke the name Jesus and the come and the title Holy One...

"Mark 1:

"24Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him."

^^Disreguard the narrorator's part where you still see "the" Person referred to by that name Jesus. He is not Jesus, He is not come, and He is not the Holy One. He is Satan/Michael, He is overcome, and He is the BLASPHEMOUS duality.

He blasphemies any actually distant sacred. He is profanely a profaner. Look up the word profane and get into the details, and I asure you things revealing.

You can not sit and tell me He is not defiling the damned (the distant) with putting them in the lake of fire. Profane also means "to defile". So now it is clear while the actual evil-doers have bodies that are simmering. If it gets too hot by somebody will your body not be defiled by that somebody?

By the way, if you come after Him, you will fail. How so? Since you did not overcome.


[edit on 23-10-2008 by Mabus]

reply to post by Mabus


Clear cut? Please.

You are entitled to your beliefs no matter what I think of them, and I will leave it at that.

Take care, and be well.

Originally posted by Mabus
You further the truth I am getting at. You know that "in" implies not the 7th itself?

Example: When you put anything "in" a suitcase, is that anything the suitcase itself? No! That anything is STILL outter.

I'll give you a run down:

on, in, out, to, beside, like, as, under, over, and the alike are all implications of "outter" whatsoever (or whosoever) it the case be.

So God is indeed implicated being not something when everybody swears God is EVERYTHING? Hmmm.

Once again, if you look at the original Hebrew scriptures, the word IN or ON is not used, you're basing your belief simply on how a translator decided to translate it into English.

Gen 1:
1 "In" the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

^^Clearly God is not the beginning. It is even why Revelation implicates "the" Person (formerly named Jesus) Who is "the" beginning. The Person is not iplicated being "in" the beginning.

Let me also quote something you quote to another:

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

^^How can no one see the Devil is not Satan? The old serpent was called the Devil. Notice the word WHICH right after the word Satan?

If I say, You, called Frog, and I, which decieve the whole world...

^^Do you see now how Satan is not the Devil? The person which decieve the whole world (you must pick one of the two) is the he who was cast out into the earth. Who it was still decieves, so it is Satan. But duh, the world is implicated as what? EVIL. So what is Satan doing decieing EVIL? It is implicating Satan is not evil if he is decieving it.

So do not knock Satan being Jesus' new earthly name.

Once again, the verse you quoted in Genesis does not use the word IN.

Also the verse you quoted in Rev 12:9, you need to read again, it is talking of the the dragon, that old serpent, and then it says he is called the devil and Satan, listing the other names for the same entity. It is not talking of separate beings, otherwise the first half of the sentence makes absolutely no sense. The truth is, the words translated from the Greek as Devil (diablos) and Satan (Satanas) have exactly the same meaning. Diablos is Greek for acuser, and so is the word Satanas which is simply the greek rendering of the Hebrew word Satan, meaning slanderer, acuser, adversary etc.

It would be like me saying "And my Derick, that old man, who is called my boss and my employer, went away on a fishing trip. If I was saying my boss was a separate person to my employer, why did I even bring him up in the beginning of the sentence? That would make no sense.



[edit on 23/10/08 by doctorex]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
In my understanding, the only unfulfilled Jewish High Holy Day is the Feast of Trumpets, which will be fulfilled upon Christ's return. I admit to being somewhat weak in this area of prophecy, though.

On the day of Atonement, one goat had all the sins of Israel placed upon it's head and was lead away into the wilderness (Leviticus 16). The goat symbolized Satan, and was prophetic of what happens to Satan at the return of Christ, him being taken away and locked in the bottomless pit for 1000 years (rev 20). This is yet to be fulfilled.

Pentecost pictures the early and smaller harvest (first fruits), which is prophetic of the early or first resurrection of Saints at the return of Christ (rev 20). This is also yet to be fulfilled.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I do stick to my assertion that Christ is the Christian Sabbath. Salvation is not predicated on anything but accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Paul wrote at length, and confronted Peter and James, on this issue. The Judaizers sought to add the circumcision and allegiance to Old Testament customs to the salvation of the Gentiles. Paul showed them to be in error.

Yes but this had only to do with circumcision, the weekly and annual Sabbaths were not mentioned or debated. I agree that Salvation has nothing to do with works, but we are rewarded according to them....

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Also, note this parable....

12 He said therefore, A certain noble man went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou laidst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

reply to post by doctorex


Are you telling me that the one you deem the Creator did not want the words translated for the world? And that that Creator only wanted us to come to speaking the only language the only original writings was written in?

You should read these to remind you henceforth:

"Matt24:
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

"Mark 13
10And the gospel must first be published among all nations."

^^Therefore I stand correct with what I state concerning "in", "on", and the alike, how I, here in America, am meant for revealing aspects in truth.
The one you deem the Creator sure is working with, say, the KJV and etc. translations says the quotes since is surely 'for' them. Like, why would it be we must refer to the original words only, as if no other translation holds any relevent weight wanted seen? As if there is no such thing as synonyms? As if there is no such thing as things meant to be edited out? Does not a bird lose its egg shell, before your observation, after hatching, so that you may observe it as more than that egg shell? And the egg shell is waste material just like stuff that is edited out in a movie.

Surely the english translations reveal they are trees grown up from a seed. Remember the parable about the mustard seed and kingdom comparison? Basically, there may be richly more told with a translation other than with the original writings.

So what I'm saying is the translated versions others read may be meant just how so they have come forth by the one you deem the Creator, just for those readers to get the message in truth with them. Ever thought that to be the case?

Plus, for a person who buys only the original writings you sure are quoting from a translation. Am I smelling hypocrisy cooking? You can not believe in USING the original and then knock what I said when you surely dont believe in USING the original yourself. You would be better off letting what I said stand, with the version I'm working with that you're woring with, with your very agreement than go into a hypocrisy with that original vs a translation case.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Mabus]

reply to post by Icarus Rising


I was referring in a larger sense to our own psychology, in which good and evil are simply constructs made up by human intellect.
A person would consider someone good if he was selfless. However, a human cannot be selfless. Any act of good we do is based on our definition and the 'feel good' experience we have at a deep subconscious level where we define ourselves as more than the common 'animal'.
It's hope.
A person would consider someone evil if he hurts people for the purpose of hurting people. However, again, no one would hurt someone simply for the purpose of 'evil', there's always a reason or something to be gained, even if it's only mental. If what that person has to be gained happens to cross our safety or well being, they are evil. A person like this would not mind being considered an 'animal', and has, by and large, less hope in humanity.
When you go deeper into our own psychology, these things become apparent, and you begin to realize that not everything is black and white... in fact, nothing is.
I choose to have hope in humanity. That doesn't make me 'good', 'evil', or 'better', it simply means that I choose to have hope.

Originally posted by Mabus
And to the other poster: Better continues unlike best and unlike good. Best implies final and set. So when I say I am better I cap off not myself since I am overcoming, always, with the Person's new naming (Satan/Michael).

Saying you are "better than the good and the evil" is arrogant and a bit ridiculous. Better in what regards? Is it not your own opinion which defines this?
There is no 'better' in regards to shades of gray.



reply to post by Mabus


The original text must be consulted because the original and translated texts don't match up perfectly. One of them has errors. And since the translated text CAME from the original text (who'd of thunk it), then the translated text must be the text with the errors.

Originally posted by Mabus
reply to post by doctorex

 

Are you telling me that the one you deem the Creator did not want the words translated for the world? And that that Creator only wanted us to come to speaking the only language the only original writings was written in?

You should read these to remind you henceforth:

"Matt24:
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

"Mark 13
10And the gospel must first be published among all nations."

^^Therefore I stand correct with what I state concerning "in", "on", and the alike, how I, here in America, am meant for revealing aspects in truth.
The one you deem the Creator sure is working with, say, the KJV and etc. translations says the quotes since is surely 'for' them. Like, why would it be we must refer to the original words only, as if no other translation holds any relevent weight wanted seen? As if there is no such thing as synonyms? As if there is no such thing as things meant to be edited out? Does not a bird lose its egg shell, before your observation, after hatching, so that you may observe it as more than that egg shell? And the egg shell is waste material just like stuff that is edited out in a movie.

Surely the english translations reveal they are trees grown up from a seed. Remember the parable about the mustard seed and kingdom comparison? Basically, there may be richly more told with a translation other than with the original writings.

So what I'm saying is the translated versions others read may be meant just how so they have come forth by the one you deem the Creator, just for those readers to get the message in truth with them. Ever thought that to be the case?

Plus, for a person who buys only the original writings you sure are quoting from a translation. Am I smelling hypocrisy cooking? You can not believe in USING the original and then knock what I said when you surely dont believe in USING the original yourself. You would be better off letting what I said stand, with the version I'm working with that you're woring with, with your very agreement than go into a hypocrisy with that original vs a translation case.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Mabus]

You are basing your doctrine on something that is not present in the original scripture, you are simply twisting the translation to mean what you want it to. The word "on" is used in the english to simply translate it into how we would say it in English, as in "on the weekend I am going fishing" but you are twisting that into meaning that God didn't rest on the seventh day, he rested outside it, when this has absolutely nothing to with how what you are reading was originally written, but you've obviously already made up your mind and have intention of seeing your error. If God wanted to say that he rested outside of the seventh day, there are actual Hebrew words that could have been used, the point being, they weren't used, because that is not what the verse is trying to say. The exact same phrasing is used for example in Judges 19:5

Jdg 19:5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

Are you now going to tell me that it wasn't on the fourth day?

Sure I quote the English translations, because it is easier to read and share with others, but if I am going to base a doctrine around what is written, I will always go to the original to make sure that is exactly what is written before making up my mind, something you should have done before making up your mind that God rested outside of the seventh day.

Anyway, all languages aside, to settle this debate, I am going to ask you a question. If I tell you that on the seventh day I am going bash my head against a brick wall, please, tell me, what day am I going to bash my head against a brick wall? If you tell me any day except the seventh day, I will know that you are completely insane.

[edit on 24/10/08 by doctorex]

Originally posted by doctorex

Jdg 19:5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

Are you now going to tell me that it wasn't on the fourth day?

Anyway, all languages aside, to settle this debate, I am going to ask you a question. If I tell you that on the seventh day I am going bash my head against a brick wall, please, tell me, what day am I going to bash my head against a brick wall? If you tell me any day except the seventh day, I will know that you are completely insane.

[edit on 24/10/08 by doctorex]

You read the ideal way I see. This is why you see "on" implicating entered. I read the ideal way and I read the literal way and I read the metaphoric way and I read the figurative way. Why do I do that? The four seed falling telling parable is the reason.

If I put a gun on your head... Are you telling me the gun entered you?

^^Yeah, I bet you you do not read it the ideal way then.

If on monday I'm always asleep.

^^Yeah, I bet you read it the ideal way. But I must tell you, that you should read not just the ideal way so that way you can SEE beyond the FACE value for more richness.

And if you did say you would bash your head on the seventh day, I'd know you are implying when entered that very day is when you'd do it, since I see you go with the ideal way concerning your reading way. But you know that if I said such I'd not be implying entered that day, since you see I go with the non-ideal way concerning reading, since I dont go with FACE VALUE.

Though, I actually know ppl read the ideal way more likely, so some times when I say anything, and I know ppl read for the ideal way, I will imply what I say the very ideal way. When I dont speak with the ideal way I will point it out. And if I go the technically literal way during a court Judge's questionings... It is truth still since the truth is not bound any single way.

Read about the snare in Luke 21. IT COMES ON ALL THEM THAT DWELL ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH!

^^And it is implying those listening the ideal way shall be snared!

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Mabus]

For any reading for the face value:

Luke 21:
34And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

35For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

36Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

^^Now listen carefully cause here it is... Tell me what it is implying the very ideal way. Then tell me what it is implying the literal way 2nd, the metaphoric way 3rd, the figurative way 4th, if it also has such the more implications. I tell you, if you see all the distant (and distancing) words, then it means you do see the keys "to" heaven and the key "to" the bottomless pit and the keys "to" hell and death.

Behold, I come "as" a thief!

^^Tell me what you see now?! The person who said it is implying they are away from thieving. Implying you basically steal and rob yourselves alone. And, figuratively, you all are holding yourselves up.

I tell you all also, those that the lake of fire has burning power over no one is keeping them there expect their own selves alone. They, willingly freely, will never leave the torments they are holding themselves up with. That is stupid, but that is their manner. And you who will never go away from just reading the ideal (face value) way are snared already till you all will see no one way any longer.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Mabus]

Now lets see:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend "from" heaven with a shout, with the voice "of" the archangel, and with the trump "of" God: and the dead "in" Christ shall rise first:

^^Do you see what I see with this quote AWAY FROM IDEAL FACE VALUE? The lake of fire has the Lord. Who all is with the Lord is the Lord. So the shout and voice is concerning while you the Lord be experiencing torments.

Satan is earthly. Michael is heavenly. Any other archangel is a snare with the lake of fire where that archangel remains for a great rim wall.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Mabus]