Bill Deagle is a killer and the biggest fraud ever, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 63 times

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:15 PM by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Kukulcangod

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Baracas

"Destroy this temple and I shall raise it again in 3 days."

Jesus Christ.

He rose again in 3 days.

DID NOT !

LOL, yeah right. Hundreds of men were martyred for a lie in the first century.

When all they had to do was renounce Christ.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 02:44 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Kukulcangod

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Baracas

"Destroy this temple and I shall raise it again in 3 days."

Jesus Christ.

He rose again in 3 days.

DID NOT !

LOL, yeah right. Hundreds of men were martyred for a lie in the first century.

When all they had to do was renounce Christ.

Is this in the right thread?

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:21 PM by lasthope

Every where I go the standard of debate is poor - you should all post your age and occupation and your beliefs before you post anywhere here.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 05:24 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by lasthope
Every where I go the standard of debate is poor - you should all post your age and occupation and your beliefs before you post anywhere here.

Quite a statement from someone who added nothing and could not even reply on-topic.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 09:18 PM by SASAlbertino

lol if u think some funded nutcases havent tried to create cyborg baboons at some point then ure ignorant, anyway deagle has been saying the world economy is gonna collapse for years.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 09:43 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Kukulcangod

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Baracas

"Destroy this temple and I shall raise it again in 3 days."

Jesus Christ.

He rose again in 3 days.

DID NOT !

LOL, yeah right. Hundreds of men were martyred for a lie in the first century.

When all they had to do was renounce Christ.

Really? Hundreds of men dying is proof of christ? It is not possible that they laid their lives down for a lie? What great truth did these people die for?

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 10:02 PM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by MorningStar8741

There was a specific reason I said "first century".

You know, the eyewitnesses. There were hundreds in Jerusalem who met bitter death at the hands of the Pharisees when Christ died and rose again.

All they had to do to save their life was to admit it was a lie.

The people in your link put their faith in a man, if only they obeyed the scriptures telling us never to do so.

Many of them would be alive today.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 10:16 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MorningStar8741

There was a specific reason I said "first century".

You know, the eyewitnesses. There were hundreds in Jerusalem who met bitter death at the hands of the Pharisees when Christ died and rose again.

All they had to do to save their life was to admit it was a lie.

The people in your link put their faith in a man, if only they obeyed the scriptures telling us never to do so.

Many of them would be alive today.

What are you trying to say? People were most sophisticated in the 1st century? You draw a very arbitrary line. They all put their faith in men. They all died for no good reason.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 11:34 PM by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MorningStar8741

There was a specific reason I said "first century".

You know, the eyewitnesses. There were hundreds in Jerusalem who met bitter death at the hands of the Pharisees when Christ died and rose again.

All they had to do to save their life was to admit it was a lie.

The people in your link put their faith in a man, if only they obeyed the scriptures telling us never to do so.

Many of them would be alive today.

What are you trying to say? People were most sophisticated in the 1st century? You draw a very arbitrary line. They all put their faith in men. They all died for no good reason.

You're free to think what you will. Jesus Christ was no ordinary man. His death brought salvation to all who believe on Him for their forgiveness of sins through His shed blood.

Why do you have one of Jesus Christ's titles for your screename? Just curious.

reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 11:46 PM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You're free to think what you will. Jesus Christ was no ordinary man. His death brought salvation to all who believe on Him for their forgiveness of sins through His shed blood.

Why do you have one of Jesus Christ's titles for your screename? Just curious.

Well, I was just responding to what you said. You seemed to be making the point that hundreds of people would not lay their lives down for a lie. I got that from well, you saying exactly that. So I just thought that I would ask how you explain Jonestown then. Hundreds of people laid their lives down for what? The truth? It is just not so unheard of for hundreds of people to willingly die for a lie. It does happen, sorry.

To answer your question, I guess Jesus forgot to get the proper copyright papers in on time. I am actually surprised that you would not be able to think of anyone else it might have been used to refer to. Does my avatar help?

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 12:30 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by MorningStar8741

You seemed to be making the point that hundreds of people would not lay their lives down for a lie.

You read what you wanted to read. I said "first century" believers, I.E., eyewitnesses.

Hilarious!!! Are you aware that the ONLY place the Greek manuscripts use the term "Lucifer" is a verse in Isaiah. All the modern counterfeit Bibles change "Lucifer" to "Morning star".

Jesus Christ Himself uses the term for Himself:

""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16

""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!"

Isaiah 14:12

LOL!!! That's priceless!!!! You thought "Morning star" was Lucifer's moniker??

[edit on 11-10-2008 by NOTurTypical]

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 12:39 AM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MorningStar8741

You seemed to be making the point that hundreds of people would not lay their lives down for a lie.

You read what you wanted to read. I said "first century" believers, I.E., eyewitnesses.

Hilarious!!! Are you aware that the ONLY place the Greek manuscripts use the term "Lucifer" is a verse in Isaiah. All the modern counterfeit Bibles change "Lucifer" to "Morning star".

Jesus Christ Himself uses the term for Himself:

""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16

""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!"

Isaiah 14:12

LOL!!! That's priceless!!!! You thought "Morning star" was Lucifer's moniker??

[edit on 11-10-2008 by NOTurTypical]

LOL, Hilarious, you think I care what the bible says. I am sorry that in your world that is what it is all based on but the devil was around long before jesus and long before the bible. I never said Lucifer either, is that all an upside down cross is to you? Wow, try reading your book, there were people crucified that way you know, how do you know I am not referring to them with the avatar. Lucifer is also a name from YOUR book. I would certainly not want to call myself that. I am also sorry that I can give you 5 other religions that use a term that translates to morning star for deities completely different from either. Your point? Base whatever you like in your ficticious little book. I really do not care if I fit into one quote, or the accepted translation. It is YOUR BOOK. Try literature, it is more interesting.

Anyway...can you please explain the difference between 1st century people dying for a lie and the people at Jonestown?

[edit on 10/11/08 by MorningStar8741]

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 12:48 AM by MorningStar8741

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I can simplify it for you. There is a world outside of Christianity.

"I am the opposer. The inquisitor. The bringer of light. The morning star."

See, no biblical quote, no strange Christian names. Please do not apply standards to me that I do not recognize as legit. BTW, a quick glance reveals far more references to Lucifer as the morning star being the widely accepted translation. But hey, I was just lookin around real quick. But if you like, I guess the word faget is still a bundle of sticks and not offensive at all...or...you can just try to imagine that not everything can be measured by some obscure and mistranslated quote from your little fairy tale about Jesus.

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 01:15 AM by NOTurTypical

Lucifer is a counterfeiter, he has been since the dawn of time. I have no doubts whatsoever he'd try and steal one of Christ's own names. No doubt at all.

Westcott and Hort gave that title to Lucifer in the Greek that the NIV and NASB use. W & H were two closet satanists, both involved with the Theosophy Society. Westcott founded the Hermes club.

It's still hilarious to me. You unwillingly bearing a name Christ uses for Himself. Don't change it bro, I'd much rather have the chuckle everytime I see one of your posts than to have you change it to "SONoftheMorning" as it should be.

P.S. If you really want to know what the Greek has to say, check out Strong's Concordance for Isaiah 14:12... you won't be happy.

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 01:21 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by MorningStar8741

Anyway...can you please explain the difference between 1st century people dying for a lie and the people at Jonestown?

I have already, twice. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an"e". Nobody at Jamestown witnesses an empty tomb, or a risen Christ.

First century martyrs are quite different. I'd like to think you are much brighter than you are appearing to be, are you feigning this apparent lack of reading comprehension?

Please say yes....

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 01:42 AM by MorningStar8741

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, I am simply refusing to acknowledge said difference. The difference that you state depends completely on the idea of what they died for being true to begin with. You are saying it is true because they died. Ok, why is it important that THEY died for something? Because they witnessed the truth? How do you know it was the truth? Because they died for it.......

I thought you were smarter than that as well. Apparently we both like to play stupid?

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 02:50 AM by candyfloss

Originally posted by lasthope
Every where I go the standard of debate is poor - you should all post your age and occupation and your beliefs before you post anywhere here.

Candyfloss-Don't you know you never ask a lady this?

Occupation-Boss of the Carluccio Crime Family-Specialtites-We make you an offer you can't refuse.

Beliefs-White Anglo Saxon Protestant,Socialist Feminist(with a touch of Marxism),Ex-Vegetarian,Ex-Playmate of the Year 91, I believe Diane Von Fustenberg makes the best dresses in the world,PJoRourke is funny and tequila is the answer.

I've shown you mine now you show me yours.But apart from all this Deagle is still a charlaton no matter what Jesus did or said or what happened in Jerusalem 500 years ago -whatever.

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 07:37 AM by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lucifer is a counterfeiter, he has been since the dawn of time. I have no doubts whatsoever he'd try and steal one of Christ's own names. No doubt at all.

Westcott and Hort gave that title to Lucifer in the Greek that the NIV and NASB use. W & H were two closet satanists, both involved with the Theosophy Society. Westcott founded the Hermes club.

It's still hilarious to me. You unwillingly bearing a name Christ uses for Himself. Don't change it bro, I'd much rather have the chuckle everytime I see one of your posts than to have you change it to "SONoftheMorning" as it should be.

P.S. If you really want to know what the Greek has to say, check out Strong's Concordance for Isaiah 14:12... you won't be happy.

Chuckle all you like, I am not sure what about it is so funny. I did not claim to be Lucifer did I? You seem to think I did. You also seem to think that crosses are a wholly Christian symbol. I really do not care if you have one source that calls Jesus that, and you have 20 that call Lucifer that, and you want to gloat about what you know, even if it is not the common exception great. I already explained to you that you are wrong right from the get go because I am not referring to ANYONE IN YOUR BIBLE. I am glad you are getting a chuckle, me too. Whatever it is that makes you laugh, enjoy it. I would not want to take that from you. Afterall, you are so proud of thinking you called me out for being ignorant. Your Jesus was a big fan of pride right?

I will try one more time, Nothing about my screen name or avatar are is based in your little book. But let's just go there for a moment if you really must. Everyone knows that Lucifer was the brightest star in all of Heaven right? He was the bringer of light right? He was THE fallen one right? Are we talking about the same book so far?

Let us fast forward a few thousand years. To this day more people have been murdered, raped, and robbed in the name of your precious morning star than that evil Lucifer. So if you really want to cling to the Jesus in that book, go for it. He is the biggest scumbag I can think of as far as namebranding goes. If he called himself the same thing I happen to. The same thing that other devils had gone by before Christianity even came along, then super. I have a cousin named George, he is not the president; just has the same name. See how that works. I hope this clears things up for you. Now go tell your Jesus how proud you are of yourself.

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 08:30 AM by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, I am simply refusing to acknowledge said difference. The difference that you state depends completely on the idea of what they died for being true to begin with. You are saying it is true because they died. Ok, why is it important that THEY died for something? Because they witnessed the truth? How do you know it was the truth? Because they died for it.......

I thought you were smarter than that as well. Apparently we both like to play stupid?

You're mad. All the apostles, less John, died martyrs deaths. No man dies for something they know to be a lie. No man does, ESPECIALLY when all they need to do is reject said "lie". That's ABSURD to assume they would let people stone them, crucify them, feed them to lions, et cetra, when all they needed to do was reject what they previously stated. They were EYEWITNESSES to Christs miracles and resurrection.

And to compare duped peoples at Jamestown, who witness ZERO miracles is like comparing dill pickles to bananas. What was the apostles MOTIVE? They were certainly not rich for this lie. In fact, they spent most of their lives running from persecution in the first century.

What was their MOTIVE for such a lie? Use some basic common sense.

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 08:33 AM by MorningStar8741

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I am mad?????? How can you make any difference? All the people at JONESTOWN had to do was NOT drink the kool aid. But they did. You say NO MAN dies for a lie. They died for a lie. You contradict yourself in your own post and call me mad?