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.

 

A Message To Christians... A Message of Peace...

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
And just like a normal Christian, you quote mostly Paul to me.

Fine, then lets stick with stuff not written by Paul, it really does not change the meaning any.


Originally posted by badmedia
Paul, who promises a "free gift", yet the gift in reality costs so much that even the rich man is unable to obtain it, with Jesus saying it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man in heaven.

First off I hope you realize that “the eye of a needle” was a gate in the city wall, not a literal needle.


But that is not the point here, the point was not one of works, it was one of idolatry again. Which do you love more, God or your possessions/self? Additionally if you notice when the rich man approached Christ he said: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” So he was asking how to work his way into heaven, “what must I do.” You cannot work your way into heaven that comes from faith and grace.


Originally posted by badmedia
I guess I am to believe Jesus walked away laughing saying "What a fool, all he has to do is wait until I am dead, and believe in me". I doubt it.

It has to do with the fact that Jesus could see that his heart was not in the right place. He loved his possessions more then God.


Originally posted by badmedia
Needing Paul for half the bible, pretty much says that Jesus alone isn't enough, you can't follow Jesus or take Jesus for what he says - despite the fact he speaks in parables to give understanding, you need Paul to show the correct way to interpret them.

Most of Paul’s writings were to early churches on how to conduct themselves. That is why his letters are all letters to specific churchs named by location.


Originally posted by badmedia
What you talk about with Jesus is talking about the left and right hands I mentioned earlier. Where people do things to be seen as "good" in the eyes of men, but in the darkness they do other things.

No, it is mainly about someone doing works publicly for the attention and praise they receive for themselves, rather then doing it secretly as a Christian for the Glory of God.


Originally posted by badmedia
As for war, what leader doesn't first weigh the odds of the battle before entering it? If they can't win, they instead compromise and try to bring about peace. So, when they go to war it's because they hold the greater evil. Because that is all it is, evil fighting evil and the greater evil wins.

Hey you said it yourself, the world is evil. Even still, in the Old Testament God commands Israel to conduct several “Just” wars.




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


theres actually guidelines as to what religions are what and what denominations are what.

You can choose to ignore them and the other 6 billion people that generally agree to the different religions and denominations of such religions...

completely up to you...but they arent my rules...as you like to say...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Actually, Jesus does tell him to do something. He tells him to go give his riches to the poor. And the rich man dropped his head because he was not willing to give up those riches.

But that same rich man is embraced by the church. According to Paul, that rich man needs only to accept Jesus and get his "free gift". So, not ok for the rich man, but is ok for all the rich Christians?

It's a contradiction.



Matthew 10

28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

42And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.


So called just wars are done out of fear, and people trying to save themselves.

As for the OT and god with wars. Are you saying that all these wars were commanded by god?

I honestly do not know about the OT and wars. I do know that I am not supposed to do such things at all, and that Jesus did not teach such things. The sword Jesus brings is that of truth and tongue.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


In other words, you can stare at the finger you are pointing, but must ignore the 3 pointing back?

Pretty much says it all right there. You are just another hypocrite. Read Matthew 7. You are just pointing out the splinter in 1 eye, and ignoring the beam in your own eye. The only way to see the truth is to put yourself on the other side, and then you can see the beam in your own eye.

At which point you will realize it's just evil fighting evil, and both sides are wrong.



I'll ask again.. Name a war today that doesn't involve Islam.

You can try to use your little firehouse of distraction but you still have yet to answer the question.

And please get a grip on your emotions. Responding the way you have is totally an emotional reaction.. like a little girl having a tantrum.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


I wasn't arguing with the guidelines. I totally agree on where they draw the lines called "religion" because they're the ones that define what means religion and therefore what sets fall into it.

Notice, I didn't say we could cut religions up into smaller religions. I said we could cut the religions up into smaller "subsets" of religions. A subset of a religion is not in and of itself a complete religion. It is simply a subset, what you may call a denomination.

But they also decide what sets are included in a denomination, but those things are just labeled sets. Religion and deonominations being the labels.

What I am saying is we could cut the pie up into smaller subsets and then make new labels for those smaller subsets. They wouldn't be religions. They wouldn't be denonimations. They would be labelled something else, but still be subsets of the whole.

However, my point is, when looking at the smaller subsets or higher super sets the original idea of the thread may fall apart once we scientifically remove the bias.

We may find out that it is not Christianity that is the problem, but perhaps a smaller subset of Christianity such as Catholicism or Baptists or even a smaller subset such as one specific church.

Or we may find out that the problem being discussed presents itself on a much higher super set, such as monotheist faiths only.

However, without scientifically defining the problem and studying all the sets, subsets, and super sets, we have no argument. We simply have someone's biased opinion, who chooses to attack Christianity as a whole because of problems that may very well be caused by a smaller subset of the religion.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


But there is a higher super set. Abrahamic religions that would also include Islam and Judaism. Then a higher super set of monotheist faiths. Then a even higher super set of simply the set called "religion". Where you draw the line is arbitrary and up to the debater.


They are too dissimilar in their core beliefs to state that they have such a commonality that they could be regarded as being just minor variants of one another.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974


They are too dissimilar in their core beliefs to state that they have such a commonality that they could be regarded as being just minor variants of one another.




Plus no one in any of the three religions considers the other 2 as being part of their religion. So by that means too you can regard them as being 3 separate religions.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
I'll ask again.. Name a war today that doesn't involve Islam.

You can try to use your little firehouse of distraction but you still have yet to answer the question.

And please get a grip on your emotions. Responding the way you have is totally an emotional reaction.. like a little girl having a tantrum.


Fine, there is the civil war in Congo. A country which is 80% Christian, and 10% are muslim. It's been going about 11 years.

Get a grip on my emotions? Please, just another personal attack.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

So called just wars are done out of fear, and people trying to save themselves.

As for the OT and god with wars. Are you saying that all these wars were commanded by god?


I'm surprised such a Bible expert as yourself isn't aware of this.

Not only did God command the Israelites to engage in specific (not perputual.. God isn't Allah.. He has standards, you know) wars, but God also uses the neighboring empires going to war against the Israelites to fit his purposes.




I honestly do not know about the OT and wars. I do know that I am not supposed to do such things at all, and that Jesus did not teach such things. The sword Jesus brings is that of truth and tongue.


The NT is basically silent about Christians in Government. The most that it has to say is Jesus telling people to submit to the State that which is legitimately the State's domain.

And also that there is a spiritual dimension to the world and to the major world powers. And some other minor things.

I believe that Pacificism is a greater evil than having to engage in war.

Pacificism is a blank-check to the aggressors of the world, and a spit in the face to those who perish under that aggression.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman


However, without scientifically defining the problem and studying all the sets, subsets, and super sets, we have no argument. We simply have someone's biased opinion, who chooses to attack Christianity as a whole because of problems that may very well be caused by a smaller subset of the religion.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by tinfoilman]


In my experience fighting with these people over the years, they mostly are reacting to Catholic abuses, of which they have a vague notion of.

They generally are not subject experts and stay firmly in the land of cliches.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


Not talking about religions anymore. Talking about subsets of religions. A subset is not equivalent to the whole. A subset of a religion is not a religion itself. Just a subset.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
I'm surprised such a Bible expert as yourself isn't aware of this.

Not only did God command the Israelites to engage in specific (not perputual.. God isn't Allah.. He has standards, you know) wars, but God also uses the neighboring empires going to war against the Israelites to fit his purposes.


I'm not a bible expert, it is not the word of god for me or anything of that sort. I gained my understanding from the father, and war and such was never part of it.

I know the bible says those things, but that to me does not mean it is of god.

But I do realize in the end, all things are for the father, including evil. But for a reason purpose, and that is not what I am told to do.



The NT is basically silent about Christians in Government. The most that it has to say is Jesus telling people to submit to the State that which is legitimately the State's domain.

And also that there is a spiritual dimension to the world and to the major world powers. And some other minor things.

I believe that Pacificism is a greater evil than having to engage in war.

Pacificism is a blank-check to the aggressors of the world, and a spit in the face to those who perish under that aggression.


Then Jesus was evil in your view. Because he did not fight back. He even heals the guys ear. It is not the way, or the path.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus says - blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the war mongers.



Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
Islam was never a superpower? please crack open a history book.

The areas encompassing what is now the Islamic nations have not been a world controlling superpower since Alexander the Great. They may become one in the future though as they are out-populating the rest of the planet. Funny thing though is that the US seems to either have a base in, or influence over the government of almost all that area.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
The Beast of Rev 13 indicates that the End Time empire will encompass the former empires of Babylon, Persia, and Macedonian (Alexender's).

I see no such statement made in revelations 13? Where are you getting this? If you are referring to the beast that is made of the four beasts of Daniel, that has nothing to do with the land it holds. That is Rome, and its ingesting of the Pagan Cultures of the other three superpowers before it.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
The Roman Empire never held much land in babylon and when it did, it was not for long. And it never extended into Persia , and thus it never took all of Macedonian Empire either.

There is nothing that say it had to hold the actual physical land. It was the superpower of its time though.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
Also, the Roman Empire lasted until 1453 ,, when the Ottoman caliphate defeated it. Catholic Church was not an empire. The Pope is not a king.

Here is where you need to crack open a history book.
The Roman Empire never ended, and it continued on until after the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. The last Holy Roman Emperor was Charles V in 1556, but by then they were simply figureheads. The power of the emperors had been handed over to the Holy Pontiffs. So the Roman Empire never really ended, it simply handed over its power to the Vatican.

The Title Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Pagan Roman Churches in the Roman Empire, and was a title that was normally bestowed upon the Emperor himself. Nero, Julius, Tiberius, Caligula etc… were all Pontifex Maximuses. The job description of the Pontifex Maximus is a one for one exact match with the description of the “Little Horn” in Daniel. In fact, did we use the Sheik Jamul Calendar, or did we use the Pope Gregory one (Gregorian), remember, “seek to change the TIMES”…

His real power lay in the administration of jus divinum or divine law; the information collected by the pontifices related to the Roman religious tradition was bound in a corpus which summarized dogma and other concepts. The chief departments of jus divinum may be described as follows:
The regulation of all expiatory ceremonials needed as a result of pestilence, lightning, etc.
The consecration of all temples and other sacred places and objects dedicated to the gods.
The regulation of the calendar; both astronomically and in detailed application to the public life of the state.

The administration of the law relating to burials and burying-places, and the worship of the Manes or dead ancestors.
The superintendence of all marriages by conferratio, i.e. originally of all legal patrician marriages.
The administration of the law of adoption and of testamentary succession.
The regulation of the public morals, and fining and punishing offending parties.


Under the influence of Ambrosius, Gratian prohibited Pagan worship at Rome; refused to wear the insignia of the pontifex maximus as unbefitting a Christian; removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate House at Rome, despite protests of the pagan members of the Senate, and confiscated its revenues; forbade legacies of real property to the Vestals; and abolished other privileges belonging to them and to the pontiffs. Nevertheless he was still deified after his death.


The last traces of emperors being at the same time chief pontiffs are found in inscriptions of Valentinian, Valens, and Gratianus (Orelli, Inscript. n1117, 1118). From the time of Theodosius I (379–395), the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff; but the title was later applied to the Christian bishop of Rome. In 382, the Emperor Gratian, at the urging of St. Ambrose, removed the Altar of Victory from the Forum, withdrew the state subsidies that funded many pagan activities and formally renounced the title of Pontifex Maximus. It is said that Pope Damasus I was the first Bishop of Rome to assume the title.


So you are right the Popes are not Kings, they are in fact Emperors…

To be honest, most of today’s non-biblical, Catholic Tradition is actually canonized Rome Pagan Religion. That is why we still have holidays that are of Pagan origin such as Easter (feast of Astarte/Ishtar), and Christmas (Winter Equinox).

The Roman Empire itself rather then try and run the world through force of Arms, actually ran things by holding power over the Royal Families of all of Europe for, well… about 1260 years…
You ever wonder why all those Kings and Queens of places like England, Spain, and France were afraid to tick off mother church? They controlled those countries through fear rather then with an army, and it was much more effective and less costly.

The power of the Roman Catholic Church was absolute (with few exceptions, Edward, Luther...) in Europe until the 1790’s (the end of the 1260 years) when Napoleon removed the Pope from power and returned the rule of Italy back to an actual government. At this same time (the wounding of the first beast), the second beast was just coming into existence (right on schedule) across the ocean in 1776.

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church wrote this about the beast in his exploratory notes on Revelations around 1760-1770:
"He has not yet come, though he cannot be far off. For he is to appear at the end of 42 months of the first beast."



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I agree with your post, but still maintain that the protestants are part of it.

Do they not carry on the holidays as well? And they carry many of the other traditions and teachings of the catholic church as well.

The branches just seem to be places where they had little disagreements, but kept the bulk of the traditions.

The first beast got it's power through deception, and I'd maintain the 2nd does the same.

Jesus says those who truly follow will be persecuted, but there is no real persecution in the 2nd beast towards them. All presidents claim to be Christians and so forth. Mostly, Christians just expect it to happen.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

I see no such statement made in revelations 13? Where are you getting this? If you are referring to the beast that is made of the four beasts of Daniel, that has nothing to do with the land it holds. That is Rome, and its ingesting of the Pagan Cultures of the other three superpowers before it.


yes, the beast in rev 13 referring to the three beasts in Daniel does mean they are coexistensive in land area. That's why the common symbols are used.

Also the Statue in Daniel 2 implies that the End Time Empire is not only itself, but all the previous empires as well , since these empires are all still held together as being one body at the End when teh stone is thrown at the feet which then destroys the rest of the body and head.

Rome never existed in the lands of Persia , most of Greece, or most of Babylon

And also in Rev 17 is another beast. These are 7 Empires , at the end , an 8th king comes, he comes from one of the 7 but not the 6th. The 6th Empire is Rome. So John is explicitly excluding Rome.

All 7 , excluding Western Europe are under Islam today.

The end Time empire is the combination of the 7 past empires except that portion of Rome that was exclusive to it, Western Europe.




Originally posted by VinceP1974
Also, the Roman Empire lasted until 1453 ,, when the Ottoman caliphate defeated it. Catholic Church was not an empire. The Pope is not a king.

Here is where you need to crack open a history book.
The Roman Empire never ended, and it continued on until after the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. The last Holy Roman Emperor was Charles V in 1556, but by then they were simply figureheads. The power of the emperors had been handed over to the Holy Pontiffs. So the Roman Empire never really ended, it simply handed over its power to the Vatican.

- bunch of catholic stuff snipped


The Roman Empire moved its empire to Constantinople, the "new Rome". The people of teh day did not consider that to be the end of the Roman Empire. They did not consider the West to be where the Throne was.. the Throne moved East.

Empires do move their capitals. The Macedonia Empire moved its capital after the capture of the city of Babylon to Babylon. This was the capital of the descendant Secuelid Empire.

The significance of these empires is that each of them had the control of the land of israel. When the East split from the West, it was the East that had nominal control of Israel until Islam took it over.

So just as Assyria took over Israel and destroyed Egypt, and Babylon took over Israel and destroyed Assyria, and Persia took over Israel and destroyed Babylon, and Macedonia took over Israel and destroyed Persia, and Rome took Israel and destroyed Macedonia... the Islamic Empire (caliphate) took over Israel and destroyed Rome at its capital, Constantinople, where the Caliph then moved his capital to.

Those are the 7 Empires of the Rev 17 Beast.

The Islamic Caliphate was abolished in 1924. It will be reconstituted again in the future. And it will be a brutal empire.

To think the Catholic Church is going to become anything more than it is now is laughable.

Do the people on this website have any fear whatsoever that the Catholic Church is going to dominate them one day? They laugh at that idea. So do I.

But a revival of teh Caliphate is a real threat .. and no one will think its' harmless.



The Caliph then had the title "Ceaser of Rome" in 1453


Frankly who cares what boasts the Pope make of themselves. Protestants put way more significance into the Pope because for the most part they're ignorant of the true battle that occurred with Islam. but they got a bit of a chip on their shoulder for being able to show how much of the RCC doctrines are in error.

Most of us are biased to a Western European history. We fail to appreciate what happened in teh East. because , oddly enough, after islam conquered it, the West just rather pretend that it was the center of the Universe.


To be honest, most of today’s non-biblical, Catholic Tradition is actually canonized Rome Pagan Religion. That is why we still have holidays that are of Pagan origin such as Easter (feast of Astarte/Ishtar), and Christmas (Winter Equinox).


And what do you think Islam is? LOL It's a direct descedent of Babylonian pagan religion. It's god , Allah, is nothing more than the god , Sin, that was at Ur.


John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church wrote this about the beast in his exploratory notes on Revelations around 1760-1770:
"He has not yet come, though he cannot be far off. For he is to appear at the end of 42 months of the first beast."


He also wrote this:

"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".


Daniel was instructed to seal the scoll , for it was to be hidden until the time comes for it to be understood. You have to be prepared for teh possiblity that the mainstream view is in error. Otherwise why would God say it was sealed and not knowable until the time comes?

Read my link , I get the feeling you haven't.

Some more quotes:.. I can give a lot more but these are good enough

Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, while negotiating the surrender of Alexandria to the Muslims, 640 AD:

"I am afraid that God has sent these men to lay waste the world".

Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica, 1354:

"For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil…and not only do they commit these crimes, but even — what an aberration — they believe that God approves of them. This is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of life.".



[edit on 22-8-2009 by VinceP1974]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
.

Then Jesus was evil in your view. Because he did not fight back. He even heals the guys ear. It is not the way, or the path.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus says - blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the war mongers.


Can you really be this shallow? Is that all you do is look for any opening to make a cheap (and utterly vapid) shot?

Pacifists do not make peace. Pacifists just sit there and tell those who might actually be able to make peace (by stopping aggression) not to do anything.






[edit on 22-8-2009 by VinceP1974]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by VinceP1974]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I agree with your post, but still maintain that the protestants are part of it.

Glad that we can agree on most of it, but several of the Protestant Founders realized exactly what I am stating here (such as John Wesley I mentioned above), so they are not a part of it. Actually, Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation, was the first person to call the Pope the Antichrist. I am a Lutheran, and we still hold that to be true, though its never really talked about much in our teachings.


Originally posted by badmedia
Do they not carry on the holidays as well? And they carry many of the other traditions and teachings of the catholic church as well.

Some do, and some don’t, depends on the religion. Some did not get as far away from Rome as they should have, and they do not consider it to be a big enough deal to upset their congregations over (falls under the “pick your battles” heading). I have had this issue with some Protestant Churches myself, even had an argument with my pastor over it. However, one or two canonized pagan holidays does not a beast make, rather its about a system of worldliness and Idolatry.


Originally posted by badmedia
The branches just seem to be places where they had little disagreements, but kept the bulk of the traditions.

Not as much as you might think. Outside allowing Christmas and Easter, there is not really much that relates back to Catholicism in the Lutheran Faith, and they were the first “Protestant” Religion. Of course there are going to be similarities, mainly because the RCC does still follow much of what it is the Bible, they just twist around a lot of the important stuff.


Originally posted by badmedia
The first beast got it's power through deception, and I'd maintain the 2nd does the same.

The first beast originally got its power through military might, then through advanced civilization (roads, water systems, etc.) and money. The deception part came in much later. If you are talking about the “great deception”, personally I think that is things such as Futurism, which came from the Jesuit Order out of the Counter-Reformation. Interesting thing about Futurism is that it is also supported by Zionists, who want to see a rebuilt Jerusalem.


Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus says those who truly follow will be persecuted, but there is no real persecution in the 2nd beast towards them.

Not yet, but I have a feeling that its coming in the future. Remember that the second beast looks like a lamb (Christian), but then speaks like a dragon(Satan). Right now we are busy still looking like a lamb, but with things like the Patriot & Real ID Act we are showing our Dragon side more each day. Up till now we have only shown that side to other countries, and places we have wanted to exploit for resources and such, now its starting to turn back on its citizens as well. We are heading quickly into them distributing the “Mark”. That is when you will again see persecutions, maybe not like in the Roman days (the Arena, Inquisition), but persecution either way.


Originally posted by badmedia
All presidents claim to be Christians and so forth. Mostly, Christians just expect it to happen.

You’re an ATS’er, I am sure I don’t have to tell you that Politicians are not the pinnacle of truthfulness. Yeah, they claim to be Christians, and then go hang out at places like the Bohemian Grove. I have a sort of theory on this, but its strange and probably a topic for the “gray area”. I doubt that they are much more then figureheads anymore, used to distract the public and entertain foreign diplomats to be honest. I suspect that there is something much more sinister that really is running the show in the most powerful nation on the planet.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
yes, the beast in rev 13 referring to the three beasts in Daniel does mean they are coexistensive in land area. That's why the common symbols are used.

The common symbols are used because the cultures were absorbed by each proceeding superpower. This really started with Alexander the Great, he wanted to absorb each culture and make his Alexandria’s throughout the world. Rome did the same thing when they were a superpower. So they ingested Greece which had ingested the pagan culture of all the places it had conquered. That is why there is so much similarity between the gods and goddesses of those cultures. The whole thing is about worldliness, and Idolatry though, and those were each the most worldly powerful nations of their age, this includes the Roman Empire. I do not think that you will find a single historian who will agree with you that Rome was not the most powerful empire of all the three before it.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
Also the Statue in Daniel 2 implies that the End Time Empire is not only itself, but all the previous empires as well , since these empires are all still held together as being one body at the End when the stone is thrown at the feet which then destroys the rest of the body and head. Rome never existed in the lands of Persia , most of Greece, or most of Babylon

Again, its about ingesting the pagan stuff and worldly opulence of the proceeding cultures, not their land.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
And also in Rev 17 is another beast. These are 7 Empires , at the end , an 8th king comes, he comes from one of the 7 but not the 6th. The 6th Empire is Rome. So John is explicitly excluding Rome.

Sorry, incorrect.
Revelations is not linear its cyclical.
That beast is about Rome as well:

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

The Seven Hills of Rome.

You want to see your women with the cup?



The Sibylline Oracle, the symbol of the Vatican.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
The Roman Empire moved its empire to Constantinople, the "new Rome". The people of teh day did not consider that to be the end of the Roman Empire. They did not consider the West to be where the Throne was.. the Throne moved East.

Empires do move their capitals. The Macedonia Empire moved its capital after the capture of the city of Babylon to Babylon. This was the capital of the descendant Secuelid Empire.

I am not sure what you are getting at with this, but there were emperors up until the 1500’s. Rome still existed during all that time, and still exists today as probably the oldest existing, and most powerful, organization on the planet. They are so powerful they don’t even know where all their money is, which is why they got caught owning part of a contraceptive company.
They just did not realize that the money was invested in it. This is the Beast “that was, then was not, yet is”.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
The significance of these empires is that each of them had the control of the land of israel. When the East split from the West, it was the East that had nominal control of Israel until Islam took it over.

Israel has no significant part to play in any school of prophecy but Futurism, which is why the Zionists push Futurism so hard. The significance of Israel ended in 70AD with the Fall of Jerusalem.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
Those are the 7 Empires of the Rev 17 Beast.

From Wesley:

And they are seven kings - Anciently there were royal palaces on all the seven Roman bills. These were the Palatine, Capitoline, Coelian, Exquiline, Viminal, Quirinal, Aventine hills. But the prophecy respects the seven hills at the time of the beast, when the Palatine was deserted and the Vatican in use.



Originally posted by VinceP1974
To think the Catholic Church is going to become anything more than it is now is laughable. Do the people on this website have any fear whatsoever that the Catholic Church is going to dominate them one day? They laugh at that idea. So do I.

Its role is pretty much done other then it runs things from behind the scenes. Do you think that all that power and money just disappeared? They have their fingers in all kinds of behind the scenes goings on. It would not surprise me to find out that they are the ones really running the banks, and our Federal Reserve. The point is that Rome was what the US was founded on, our legal system, our government, and even our Bill or Rights.

I’ll get back to the rest, I have to do something here at work.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by VinceP1974
yes, the beast in rev 13 referring to the three beasts in Daniel does mean they are coexistensive in land area. That's why the common symbols are used.

The common symbols are used because the cultures were absorbed by each proceeding superpower. This really started with Alexander the Great, he wanted to absorb each culture and make his Alexandria’s throughout the world. Rome did the same thing when they were a superpower. So they ingested Greece which had ingested the pagan culture of all the places it had conquered. That is why there is so much similarity between the gods and goddesses of those cultures. The whole thing is about worldliness, and Idolatry though, and those were each the most worldly powerful nations of their age, this includes the Roman Empire. I do not think that you will find a single historian who will agree with you that Rome was not the most powerful empire of all the three before it.


I never said that Rome wasn't the most powerful up to its point in history , did I ? Where did I say that?

Skipping ahead to...



Israel has no significant part to play in any school of prophecy but Futurism, which is why the Zionists push Futurism so hard. The significance of Israel ended in 70AD with the Fall of Jerusalem.


Well why didn't you just say so ahead of time. You don't need to argue your case to me. I'm familiar with it. I used to adhere to the widespread "Left Behind" type thinking.

All I was attempting to do was throw a few ideas your way , not trying to prove anything.

"Trailer" for book "God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible"... the author's son put it together:



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
He also wrote this:

"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".

I believe that some of the followers of historicism believe that the Battle of Armageddon was with Islam, but the timing is off for it to be the beast. Islam would have had to come into being around the time that Rome was wounded, and anyway you stack it you cannot take Rome out of the prophecy. That is so much the case that even the Roman Catholic Church of today does not deny that Revelations is talking about Rome, rather they say its talking about the Roman Empire under Nero as opposed to the RCC. That school of teaching is called Preterism, in case you did not already know that.



Originally posted by VinceP1974
I never said that Rome wasn't the most powerful up to its point in history , did I ? Where did I say that?

Sorry, I guess I inferred it from what you were writing.


Originally posted by VinceP1974
Well why didn't you just say so ahead of time. You don't need to argue your case to me. I'm familiar with it. I used to adhere to the widespread "Left Behind" type thinking.

Yeah, I was a Futurist myself when I started studying Eschatology, now I am firmly in the Historicist camp.



Originally posted by VinceP1974
"Trailer" for book "God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible"... the author's son put it together:

I’ll give it a watch.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join