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.

 

The Anti-Christ and His New World Order Revealed

page: 19
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TriggerFish
 


I was being slightly sarcastic with a little tongue in cheek humor.




posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


Hi SGT/

Could you please point us to that 'find' in a link or a book that you speak about?
I'm interested to read it.
Thanks,

IX
helen



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by jprophet420
This creates a huge paradox:

You can argue that if we don't take add or take from Gods word the beast is a beast.

Some argue that revelations is not God's word its a prophecy...

So then which is it? Is the beast a beast, literally, as God had described him through his prophet? Or is the prophet false? If the prophet is false all the points from revelations must be null and void.


The beast is Therion in the Greek and means "a dangerious animal", this is a deminutive of Thayrah like "terror" which means destruction.

This is saying that the beast is of no restraint to the destruction of himself. And the whore that rides his back is the one selling him the lie that an idol will save him, so the beast goes on thinking salvation is of an imaginary friend, instead of forgoing himself and raising up a new generation to the lord, he believes his salvation will come from something he has never seen, nor can confess as true only to say it is faith forgetting faith without it's workings is dead.

The beast believes in a god that is not. He "Was, is not and ascends out of the bottomless pit and goes into perdition"...."Today you shall be with me in paradise"...

Yes but it physically describes him, he looks nothing like Hitler, or any other human. All of the allegorical things you say are interesting but surely not literal.

The Beast is a figure in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. There are two beasts described in Revelation 13; the First Beast arises out of the sea, having seven heads and 10 horns. The Second (Lamb-like) Beast arises out of the earth, having the appearance of a lamb while speaking like a dragon. This Beast exercises authority on behalf of the first beast, causing the Earth-dwellers to make an image of the First Beast, and worship him. It is able to give life to this image so that it could speak and kill anyone who doesn't worship the First Beast. This Beast is later called “The False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10) and together with the Dragon (Satan) and the First Beast (the Antichrist) forms the unholy trinity.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


I'm not sure I understand how you can not take anything away from or add anything to a description like that. Either its literal or its not.


Now for those that protest that the Bible is not to be taken literally, God says: “You shall not add to the Word which I command you, nor take from it…”, and: “…so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.”


I understand that you have a mastery of the language its written in but if God says its not allegorical it's not.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


That is the point, some have contended that you COULD NOT take the Bible literally at all. Context rules and tense applications provide allowing symbolism or not.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark

Originally posted by Wideawake08
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


You are hopelessly deceived! Good Luck!


I'm hopelessly deceived?
Why?
Because I'm unwilling to bow down and be ruled?

And to some of the rest of you, there's little else I need to say to prove my point.
In fact, your argumentativeness actually supports what I say perfectly.
Regardless of the points of actual fact I bring up....

TO MR Matthew Dark......

THE Vatican is part of the apostasy..Nobody is sticking up for the Vatican and their evil ways...You either believe in Christ or you don't... Obvious you don't...

I REPEAT FACTS FROM MY PREVIOUS POST...

There is no Doubt for anyone that wants to do some research... that the Illuminati are worshiping Lucifer.. Sorry but Can't have one without the other so If Lucifer exists GUESS what?? So does Jesus.
Why don't all you bible deniers ask what the most powerful people in the world are doing in Bohemian Grove?? You never ask why these people are worshiping Lucifer which is on film for anyone to see..But spend all your time denying Jesus and attacking Christians.... this Never ceases to amaze me..
Now who is behind this NWO???
The German (fake Jews)..AshkeNAZI Jews (Nazi's) that took over Judaism but... who really follow the Babylonian Talmud, Kabbalah and conjuring up the dark side... Not the Torah.
See Talmud Here..WARNING to sensitive Viewers..
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Albert Pike (Freemason) wrote in the Mid 1800's that they would construct 3 World Wars.
www.intalek.com...

1st To remove the Czar from Russia
2nd To create a catastrophe for the Jews so Britian can hand over Palestine to the Rothschild's and create the demonic state of Israel and seat their Antichrist in the Temple. They need the exaggeration of the Holocaust to legitimize the State of Israel. The Rothschild family own 80% of Israel. and lastly to create the UN..for their New World Order.
3rd Create a world war by turning Christians against the Muslims to remove religion from the planet. (911)
Who is the Pope in the Vatican? a German (ex Nazi)
Who is behind the Royal Family of England? Germans who changed their name to Windsor.
Who is behind, owns, and controls Israel? German (fake Jews) Rothschild family.
Who owns and controls all the money in the world? German (fake Jews) Rothschild family.
Who is behind the USA? Britain, Israel and the Vatican
Who is behind THE NWO? US, Britain, Israel and the Vatican..
That is why this post was so important in linking the Antichrist who would be Assyrian..Everyone is looking for a Muslim...BUT it is really the German (fake Jews) maybe from the Royal family..but the real Torah and Messianic Jews who are again being used as sacrificial lambs.
So this posts helps identify EXACTLY what is happening on the ground today.
So it will be a Assyrian! A German (fake Jew) Nazi's disguised as Jews..
I am part German But the truth is the Truth!
So here we are again the real Jews (Gods chosen ones) have been deceived by Satan again! Satan is using (Gods Chosen) Jews as his cover. Who could link the Nazis and the Jews together? you wouldn't if you believe the lies of the holocaust..It is a fact there was a holocaust but not like they said it happened. It was a Labor camp..Most died of diseases. 150,000 jews died not 6 million. There were no gas chamber. Why do you think they are putting people in jail for questioning the facts of it.
Satan is Clever now isn't he?
Revelation 3:9
- I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. - A synagogue of Satan is also referred to in the letter to Smyrna (2:9), the Jews follow Satan, whose name means slanderer, in slandering God's people, clearly the Jews in particular were troubling these early churches as Acts demonstrates, Acts 13:45, 14:2, 17:5, 18:6, 25:7.












[edit on 14-6-2009 by Wideawake08]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


Not all of them, just a couple. Complete Codex LI (UM Papyrus LI) has not been published yet as all dating and manuscript critics work must be verified and submitted for review before anything can be published.

Bodmer Papyrus II

Papyrus Bodmer XV (p75)175-225 AD

Best of the Best Study Link



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlossomBoodchild

Thats the whole point...if these guys believe there is an anti-christ hell bent on destroying the world...and also that he can be stopped....then why arent they actively trying to stop him? Well NENOTHU...if YOU cant stop him? WHO CAN? At the same time, you believe he will come to "do his part", until his demise...which will bring about new peace..or whatever...kind of contradictory...


Why so hostile, bro? Could it be that you aren't quite so sure of yourself as you'd like others to believe? It sure sounds like it. That's the way you come across.

Here's the bottom line: If, when the end comes, it turns out I was wrong when I die, I will just be dead, no harm done. If, on the other hand, when the end comes it turns out YOU were wrong, you'll be in much worse shape than just dead. I suppose time will tell which is correct.

Besides, why should I care if your world is destroyed?



Let me get this straight one last time....


One last time? You haven't got it straight for the FIRST time yet. sounds a lot like you misunderstand on purpose, so you can over-simplify things.



there is an anti-christ...who apparently CAN be stopped...but he has to do a lot of evil things first before peace can be achieved (reminiscent of Bush's "war for peace" in Iraq)....EXCEPT...YOU wont do anything to stop him..because you conform to a book in which it is written that he must do a lot of evil things first...


That's close enough, I reckon. Since you think yourself knowledgeable in the area, what precisely is it you would have ME do? Please be specific, general plans rarely ever work.

You Do appear to have a bit of trouble separating the concepts of "mortal" and "divine".



One more thing....if someone came up to you TODAY....and told you the following..."Hey! I just had a snake talk to me...the snake told me of a guy who lived inside of a big fish for 3 days, then the snake told me of a person walking around healing people of sickness just by touching them, turning water (H20) into wine, and parting the sea in front of him....oh and by the way...this guy who turned water into wine....he was born of a VIRGIN mother..."
would you...A: take his story word for word...
or B: think he has a mental problem?


First, to answer your "what if" question, I would have to say neither A nor B. Those are not the only choices, and to presume they are displays a lack of depth.

More to the point, the only person who has ever, today or any other day, given me such a story is YOU. Should I A: take you at your word, or B: presume you have a mental problem?

Personally, I'm fairly sure you DON'T have a mental problem. Your troubles go MUCH deeper.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by jprophet420
 


That is the point, some have contended that you COULD NOT take the Bible literally at all. Context rules and tense applications provide allowing symbolism or not.


If one took the bible literally then we would believe that the earth was created from nothing to finished in just 144 hours.
Since we know, scientifically and indoubtedly, that this is not the case we have to begin to break down the literal nature of the bible and start to look at it in another context.

1000 years is but the blink of an eye to god. Great. So tens of millions of years would only seem like a week.


It is also evident that, in the greek translations of the Bible that some things should be taken less literally when referring to modern texts. Jesus did not turn water into wine. Rather, it came about as a gleeful statement.
Jesus was to attend a feast. In those days the master of the feast was expected to provide everything. On this occasion however, The Master of the feast had not been able to provide wine. Jesus, in seeing this, sent out Mary Magdalene to fetch some wine. When she returned the wine was shared aplenty. The Master of the Feast, in his joy, said something that roughly translates to 'My boy, you have turned water into wine!'
However, mistranslation of greek into latin seemed to have lost the somewhat less literal nature of this statement and it has been heralded since the latin texts that Jesus physically turned water into wine.

Other misconceptions that are taken too literally are that Jesus wasn't THE: he couldn't have been.
In those days, ALL holy men were Messiahs. It was something of a title, alot like Pastor or Bishop. All messiahs referred to god as Father and all believed to be the 'sons of god'. Heaven was also a physical place, a hill just west of Jerusalem where Messiahs would congregate on the Sabbath.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlossomBoodchild
And by the way.....we who respect science over religion...dont have to prove anything to you religious fanatics....YOU are the one claiming that a guy from the clouds is whispering in your ear....YOU are the one claiming everything in the bible is true without any evidence...and without at the very least any basis on simple logic and reason. We who do not agree with religion dont need to disprove it....there is nothing to disprove. Its the simple fact that if you repeat something long enough...people will believe it...doesnt matter if its true or not....


There's more of that hostility I'm talking about. As Shakespeare said, "Methinks thou doth protest too much." You don't need to disprove religion to us, it sounds more like you need to disprove it to yourself, and are well and truly frustrated that you can't. Keep repeating that you "don't have to disprove religion", because if you keep repeating it long enough, you may begin to believe it. The rest of your unfounded accusations there will go unanswered, because they deserve no answer. You will address that fact later on in your own rant.



The proof is on religion to establish the validity of the bible.


I think you mean "the burden of proof", but I get your drift. Folks sometimes misspeak when they get excited. Indeed, the burden of proof IS on the accuser. See your paragraph above, and attempt to prove your accusations and assertions..



To this day I have not seen ANY evidence. Forget, even, the word proof/evidence. To this day I have not seen or heard any sufficient reason to take the bible as fact...besides the most common one..."it is the work of god....its in the bible so it must be true.." substitute the word "bible" with any other religious scripture or book....its all the same. Why not believe in Harry Potter?
In my eyes...the most credence the bible or any other religious text deserves is that they are intricate allegories of the way people understood the world thousands of years ago. Its a great story, it really is! But by that standard....you should just as easily believe in Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.
If on the other hand...people were smart enough to only interpret the bible as a moral code..and spread all of the love it apparently wants to spread-----> that would be cool.....
unfortunately history will show the opposite.....more blood has been shed because of the silly belief of any religion. The fact that so much hate and blood has been spread...makes religion silly. "Silly" is a very light description....more like....delusional.
There will come a time in the future of humanity....when we will know so much more about the universe through technology and science...that religion will just be dismissed as fantasy....and anyone still clinging on to it.....as delusional.


You still seem not to grasp the fundamental differences in science and religion. You try to equate them, when they address entirely different areas of the human condition. You attempt to demote science to the position of religion, and you attempt to demote religion to the position of science. They are not at all the same, however much you try to force them to be.

"Delusional" is in the eye of the beholder. Your blind faith in science is no less delusional than any other religion. Take care of the stones you throw when living in a glass house.

I hear your anger, and more importantly I hear your fear. They have classes and programs to address issues such as those.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1

Originally posted by Ericynical
Ericynical how is something that basically agrees with the OP a "thought provoking contrastual counter-argument" to the OP. Are you even paying attention? Have you read through the entire thread or even the entire OP? Other than the silly videos, they are agreeing that the NWO is here or is coming. The only thing is that SGTChas is stating that the leader of the NWO, when revealed, will be German. To basically agree and call it a "counter-argument" is somewhat baffling.


My apologies,tallcool1 but my sense of humour is perhaps not sophisticated enough for you.......neo000's post didn't really add anything constructive to the debate,I feel.I have read the entire thread,yes.I won't say anything more as my post isn't necessary either,so sorry,I'll keep a lid on it in future.

Edited to add:why the whole post looks like a quotation is a mystery to me...

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Ericynical]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs

That being said, the more accepted interpretations of the book of revelations states that the anti-christ will come and can not be stopped until the return of the messiah descends and armageddon ensues. this in and of itsel is an il-logical fallacy, and should not be interpretaed literally, but unfortunately, the church has ensured a dumbed down version remains permeated within contemporary christianity...sad.
, but that is the way it is.)



Well, I tend not to interpret Revelations literally either. Parts of it would be absolutely ludicrous given a literal interpretation. That being said, I fail to see the illogic or fallacy of the sequence you give here. The literal interpretation of revelations doesn't affect the logic, or lack thereof, of that sequence as it stands, irrespective of whether you, or I, believe it or not. In other words, some things can be logical, but inherently false, and other things can be illogical, yet absolutely true.

Please point out to me the illogic of the sequence you outline.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TriggerFish

[
Literally means when every last human has had at least one chance to even show any interest to know Christ, God will pull the plug.

Sorry I scare you, I haven’t shot anybody for years, and then only those who deserved it





Hold on, I think I read something about "Thou Shall Not Kill" somewhere.
Just curious we reconcile this with the rest of what your saying.


"Hold on" is appropriate here. "Kill" is not a hebrew word, it's english, i.e. a translation. I presume here you refer to the Ten Commandments in the King James version of the bible, where is translated "Thou shalt not kill". The original hebrew should have been translated "You shall not do murder", but that's not quite as poetic, is it?

If we were to ban killing, we'd all starve to death, even vegetarians, as all food comes ultimately from something that lived.

"Murder", on the other hand, is defined as "unjustifiable homicide", quite different from a simple killing.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by James Random

Show us some assertion in favour of the Bible not being a fairy tale? Perhaps you have some incontrovertible evidence hidden away that all of its contents are accurate and genuine that you have not yet chosen to employ?


I think my assertions have been quite clear. Perhaps you confuse what an "assertion" is for what "evidence" is? Or was the question purposely misleading?



I would say that crying 'disinfo and misdirection' at every post you don't necessarily agree with is the least logical content in this thread.


It doesn't matter whether anyone "agrees" with me or not. simple disagreement is NOT disinformation. What I call folks out on is purposeful misdirection, marginalization, and minimization. I've been quite clear about that, and stated it several times. Not my fault if you skim the posts for something to argue with, rather than bothering to actually READ them.



Some people claim the irrefutable existence of God and his love for us because the he made the Earth and it is so perfectly designed for our needs.
Now.
Let us compared such thinkers to an intelligent puddle of water. The puddle is certain that the hole in the ground it occupies must have been designed specifically for it because it fits so well. But of course, the puddle exists as it does because of the hole, until it has entirely evaporated under the beating sun.


Nice, but rather transparent, strawman. You are arguing against an assertion that no one here has made. Good try, but off topic.



If you want some evidence that God does not exist and that the events of the Bible are inaccurate, you only need look as far as the greek translations of the Bible. Specifically Codex Sinaiticus which does not even mention the resurrection of jesus despite being a full and complete works.


Neither does Thomas Jefferson's translation of the bible. That proves only that Jefferson didn't include that part in his version. I fail to see the relevance.



Not a shocking revelation, in fact many of us have probably been expecting it for some centuries now, but consider this:

1 Corinthians 15:14 - and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.


You've been expecting something for centuries? Care to tell us how you accomplished that? I've only been around for something on the order of 50 years, so I suppose I can't really dispute your claim. Neat trick if it's true, though.



And let us not forget the 666 debacle I mentioned earlier. 666 is not even the mark of the beast, it worked it's way into the bible as anti-roman sentiment and yet here you all are expecting some fellow to be waring the earth with 666 tattooed to his forehead.


Since your post was directed at me, I must assume that you read me to say I expected someone to have a number tattooed on his forehead somewhere. If you'd care to point that post out to me, I'll have it edited. If I said any such thing, I assure you it was unintentional.

Let's see... misdirection... check. Marginalization... check. Minimization... check. YOU suss it out. I'm tired of saying it.

nenothtu out

[edit on 2009/6/14 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


I think my assertions have been quite clear. Perhaps you confuse what an "assertion" is for what "evidence" is? Or was the question purposely misleading?


Do you have some sort of complex? Everything seems to be misleading or disinformation with you?



It doesn't matter whether anyone "agrees" with me or not. simple disagreement is NOT disinformation. What I call folks out on is purposeful misdirection, marginalization, and minimization. I've been quite clear about that, and stated it several times. Not my fault if you skim the posts for something to argue with, rather than bothering to actually READ them.

I read your post quite thoroughly, hence why I only picked out the parts worthy of quotation.




Nice, but rather transparent, strawman. You are arguing against an assertion that no one here has made. Good try, but off topic.

How was it off topic? It was an analogy - not off topic.



Neither does Thomas Jefferson's translation of the bible. That proves only that Jefferson didn't include that part in his version. I fail to see the relevance.

It is an accepted fact that the further back you go the more accurate the information is likely to be. Ergo, an extraordinarily early version of the bible in its original greek is.



You've been expecting something for centuries? Care to tell us how you accomplished that? I've only been around for something on the order of 50 years, so I suppose I can't really dispute your claim. Neat trick if it's true, though.


many of us Meaning the academic world. Now you're just picking fault for the sake of doing so. You are showing yourself up a bit. Many people have been unsurprised by the codex' revelations.



Since your post was directed at me, I must assume that you read me to say I expected someone to have a number tattooed on his forehead somewhere. If you'd care to point that post out to me, I'll have it edited. If I said any such thing, I assure you it was unintentional.


Do you enjoy taking things too literally? You know I was generalizing.




Let's see... misdirection... check. Marginalization... check. Minimization... check. YOU suss it out. I'm tired of saying it.


On the flip side let us look at your char.
Idiocy: Check
Narrow mindedness: Check
Persecution Complex: Check.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by James Random]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I keep reading people saying that the bible has been 100% accurate in its predictions. Could someone post some links to these predictions that have been so accurate. Cheers!



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


You have been seriously deceived by what you have read. 1. You can reconstruct the WHOLE New Testament except for one verse from the writings of the Early Church Fathers who quote from it extensively. (Of note, they do NOT quote from any apocrypha New or Old Testament book – not once.) 2. Recent finds of manuscripts have included the whole New Testament exactly as we have it from 150 to 200 AD. The British archeologist who found it on a dig at Alexandra Egypt stated that “… this find ends all arguments on the original canon and reliability of the New Testament as delivered." The British Museum will be publishing the examination of the find this year. Almost in tact copies of Matthew and Mark has been found at the Dead Sea Scroll dig and they are 100% word for word with our copies. The publication of that find will be next month.

Independent research by several secular Universities on the available newest manuscripts find they agree 98.5 % and any differences are in verb form and tense which do not change any meanings.


[edit on 6/13/2009 by SGTChas]


So you agree with my point. The earliest documents were written 150 - 200 years after the event.

So if I sit down now & write an account of Queen Victorias coronation in 1837, what historical significance does it have?

It has none, since it is not contemporary, and that still applies whether you read it now, or in 2000 years from now.

I wasn't at QVs coronation and so I'm in no position to write about it, the testaments were written by people who never saw, heard, or met Jesus - he'd been dead for 200 years when they put pen to parchment.

Show me the texts that are contemporary to Jesus, ie in his own lifetime, & then I'll agree you have something important.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


If you closely read the original post you will find several above reproach sources. Not miss informed at all, if you visit to Trier as I have, you will find several pictures of the founder and he is one huge blonde haired blue eyed Assyrian.


Well, Jesus was also "Romanised" in art, and is still seen vavering his blonde, wooly curls, starring at you with intense blue eyes resembling fire in a face shining like the Sun to resemble the Son of Man from Revelation 1.

But being a Jew, I find it strange he looks like a Scandinavian hippie in most religious art. He has been given European features, for political reasons and the fact that the Catholic supremacy in the world was European. Other hotshots, like Julius Cæsar and Alexander the Great are also often pictured having blonde hair and blue eyes. It doesn't mean they were Assyrians.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
It never ceases to amaze me when those obviously antagonistic to the Bible flock to any thread that is written to Christians about a subject that would only interest Christians to whine, detract, bloviate, accuse, malign and throw petulant temper tantrums; impertinent children whose whole universe is shaken by anyone who dares to believe in The Lord their pride has rejected. Demanding proof (that they will get soon enough when they bust hell wide open) while attacking the intelligence of any who DARE believe in God with a psychotic fervor worthy of the mentally unstable, why?


[edit on 6/13/2009 by SGTChas]


Well it is because it is not a christian forum and if this is a Christian only thread then it belongs on one; also you made no request that anyone stay out.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
The Assyrians that settled Greater Germania (including Austria) were a “fierce warrior people with blonde hair and blue eyes”. Always at war with one another and their neighbors, they had been named ‘Germania’ because of this fierce, always warring nature.


The mutation or gene transfer that lead to the blonde hair, blue eyes and light, often reddish skin found at high rates in Europe with the ratio evening the further North you get, probably occured around the end of the last ice age, and became dominant from areas north and west of the Caucasus towards the west and north, around 5-4000 BC.

Siv, the lady of Thor the Norse warrior hero or god was blonde. Our "Venus" too, Frøya had golden locks of flowing, blonde hair, blue-green eyes and a rosy skintone with frecles over her nose.


The consensus explanation for the evolution of light hair is related to the requirement for Vitamin D synthesis and northern Europe's seasonal deficiency of sunlight. (Ashley H.Robins)

en.wikipedia.org...

Like I showed you, The Assyrians weren't blondes, and not likely the "Assyrian" of Isajah either. "The Assyrian" of Isajah is also called Caldean, and that is the area surrounding Ur (Tell el-Mukayyar, Iraq today according to the Wiki article), where Abraham came from, cituated about halfway along the river from Babylon.

However, I believe you are correct when you ascribe the elusive title of "Little Horn" to Hitler, but your bible referance is not correct. There are two "little horns" in Daniel as I'll show you:

One growing out from one of the four horns of the goat Javan (Greece) that trampled down the Ram (Medo-Persia) and killed it with it's single great horn (Alexander the Great), which then broke revealing four new, showing how the empire of Alexander the Great was shifted out among Alexanders generals instead of his sons. The whole vision is explained by arch angel Gabriel, and it's all written in Daniel chapter 8.

--> The other Little Horn, and THE Little Horn is the one in the head of the Roman Empire (teeth of iron and ten horns), successor to the Greek empire (four wings and four heads) discribed in the vision Daniel has in prior chapter 7 and must not be mixed up with the vision of chapter 8). This little horn (Dan 7:8) grows out of the Roman Empire (Which ended for good with the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Third Reich" is infact discribing how Hitler's empire would be the third wave of the Roman Empire. #1 The pagan empire of the Senate and the Cæsars, #2 the Papal empire of the French and German emperors, and finally, #3 the third Nazi Empire of Hitler), felling three other horns just as when Hitler grew in power he assumed the title Kansler as well as Führer, being both president, kansler and head of the army with complete dictatorship, helped by a series of assasinations and mysterious deaths.

[edit on 14/6/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join