Revelation; Harlot Babylon (Pt2)- "Mother of Abominations"

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by necramericanomicon
 

Your theory does not explain how the story could be inserted into a translation without being noticed.
It's the "not being noticed" that makes it impossible.
The theory falls down on the fact that the story is in other Bibles which are not KJV. Out of curiosity, I looked up Revelation in a FRENCH Bible in my possession. the story of the falling dragon is there.
The theory falls down on the fact that the story is in Bibles OLDER than the KJV.
It is discussed by ancient theologians more than a thousand years before the KJV.
If I search around, I can probably find something by Augustine or Origen.
I'm only asking you to use your common sense and logic; if the item is there BEFORE the time of King James, than King James cannot have inserted it.




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


a freenchmasonic bible that has a story of the falling dragon in it, too
what a coincidence...considering that freemasonry began in france
maybe the priory de sion punched their version up

your theory just fell on its little face, diz, just like "lucifer the shining one"
which, if i remember correctly, john j robinson mentioned was latin for the planet venus (you know, the one that the men in black tell everybody to believe is every ufo that they ever saw, if they know what is good for them)

and venus is seen to trace a pentagram from earth in the night sky...which is maybe why every damned thing in this country that matters to the freekmasons has a damned pentagram on it somewhere

and robinson wrote that it wasn't lucifer in the original book of daniel, cause he checked with some biblical scholars, and they said it was the name of some rich king who went up against israel and lost, and that he was nicknamed the "shining one" because of the way the sun glinted off of all of his gold accoutrements

so lucifer had his story fudged into the book of daniel, and then they made sure the book of revelation went to hell and stayed there

the book "the templar revelation" has it that the shroud of turin's smiling face is none other than grand master leonardo da vinci taking a camera obscura picture of his own winsome countenance

like they haven't had lots and lots of practice inserting fakes

read what you think is common sense and logic...you should talk, eh



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




Finally, let me observe that this book is completely permeated with the Christian faith.


Not a doubt of that, friend, the Christian organization has altered that book and the stories in it the truth can no longer be found there. I have read a few bibles, including the Apocrypha and other old bibles I have found. Here is a site where one can compare Bibles:
Bibles.net


The vision seen in the first chapter is the person of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Atonement, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is clearly presented in ch5 as the key and foundation of the whole book.


OK, I will give you that, but Jesus, not the man's real name, is not a God, never was, never will be, and his bones were found in 1980, so he did not die as told either. Many people have reported seeing "Jesus" but that means nothing to me. For one thing a man from that area would not have blond hair and beard.


The "battle in heaven" in ch12, and the fall of Satan from heaven, is in itself a dramatised version of that same doctrine of the Atonement. This book is rooted in the person of Jesus all the way from the beginning to the end. Therefore "the dragon=Christianity" cannot be part of the intended meaning of the book.


The "battle in heaven" you speak of never ended. If you think it did, show me scripture that says it ended. It really means a battle in space, and believe me the united States is getting ready for that.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The other feature is that the God being promoted on that site is not the Biblical God, the Creator of the world, but rather the self-centred "internal" god of those who don't really want to believe in anything except themselves;

The spirit of God that dwells in each of us is the true Giod

But believing in the "inner self" is just as idolatrous as believing in a graven or molten image. It is a putting of trust in something which is not the Creator.

The existence of that site illustrates just how much the "Harlot of Babylon" phenomenon pervades the religious world, in so many different guises.


I think you need to read a bit more on that site if that is what you came away with. he is not talking about believing in the "inner self" he is talkin abut the "God within" or that spark of divinity in us all if you will. The bible teaches that "the kingdom of God is within" so there is nothing out of harmony with the bible in the statement you quote. You just need to get some context of what is taught there.

Christ taught The father is in me and i am in the father and taught that we should become one with him as he and the father are one hence the kingdom of God is within! It has nothing to do with the selfishness and idolatry you seem to assign to it. If one finds and connects to the spirit within and follows the inner voice, or God within, kingdom within, holy spirit, or what ever one wishes to call it he/she will lead a life that is anything but self centered and selfish but will be on the true path to helping his fellow man move forward through the sands of time into the kingdom of God so to speak.
edit on 15-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
Here is a site where one can compare Bibles:
Bibles.net

I don't understand how this link fits into your argument.
My comment was that Revelation is permeated with the person of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Christian faith.
You direct me to a site where I can read the Bible in five versions of English, and also in Spanish, French, German, Swedish, and Latin.
And in all these versions the text of Revelation will be permeated with the person of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Christian faith.
So where does that get you? How is that supposed to help your case?
What you need- and what you haven't got- is a text or translation of Revelation in which the person of Jesus Christ has been omitted. When, and only when, you have got some manuscript of Revelation in which Christ was not present, you can start talking about how "the Christian authorities have added it in".


The "battle in heaven" you speak of never ended. If you think it did, show me scripture that says it ended.

Easy. I will show you two scriptures.

Revelation ch12 vv8-9; "they were defeated and there was no place for them in heaven. And the ancient dragon was thrown down".
In military circles, a battle is considered to be over when one side has been defeated. Especially when that side has just been driven from the battlefield.
On the evening of the battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington saw the shattered French army streaming away from the field, demoralised French soldiers shouting "Nous sommes trahis", Napoleon riding away towards Paris to abdicate. Do you think there was any doubt in his mind that the battle of Waterloo had ended?
One side has been defeated- traditionally, that's the end of the battle.

Less literally, I took the battle metaphorically, representing what happened on the cross. But that, too, is a battle which has been ended.
My scriptural reference for that is one single word in John ch19 v30; TETELESTHAI
That is a Greek word meaning "It is finished, it is perfected, it is complete".
Or, for the purposes of this discussion; "It is ended". Q.E.D


edit on 15-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
I think you need to read a bit more on that site if that is what you came away with. he is not talking about believing in the "inner self" he is talkin abut the "God within" or that spark of divinity in us all if you will.

I looked around at various places within the site, noting the use of tell-tale expressions like "Christ-consciousness". That was enough to tell me what was going on.
This is not a Biblical site. It is a New Age site, dressing up New Age teachings in Christian language (which is fairly standard procedure).

I need to distinguish between two different kinds of "God within".
It all comes down to the question of origin
The New Testament describes the Holy Spirit as "dwelling within us", but the Spirit is not originating within us. That is the point. The Spirit has been "sent", from a God who is external to ourselves.
The Biblical God is identified as the Creator of the universe and everything within it, including you and me, and therefore external to ourselves.
That is precisely the God- "a God in heaven"- which that site repudiates, explicitly.

The essence of your version of "God within" is that it originates within us. That is a very different kind of picture. It doesn't matter how much one dresses it up in fancy spiritual language- if you focus on a "God" who is supposed to originate within you, then you are focussing upon yourself.

So, on the one side, a God-centred Biblical religion.
On the other side, a religion which is focussed on something human, and therefore human-centred (have you seen my thread on the meaning of "666"?)
Or, putting it another way, a religion focussed on "what is within yourself", and therefore self-centred.

Aspirations to do good don't alter the fact that the base of this approach is not the Biblical God, and therefore it is non-Biblical.

(As I remarked before, the "making contact with other religions" aspect of that site is a very natural companion to this approach. The Biblical God is not compatible with other gods, which is the reason for the command "You shall have no other gods but me". So the Christian religion cannot be brought into unity with other religions unless the content of the Biblical teaching and understanding of the nature of the Biblical God is watered down first.)
edit on 15-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Response to necramericanomicon

That was just an example.
The point was that this story is found in all the versions of the Bible available in the last two thousand years, and is also discussed by many thousands of Christian writers over the last two thousand years.
For example I can quote- simply because it was the first instance I found on searching- the writer Victorinus, who died as a martyr in 303 or 304. He quotes the verse in question and adds the comment; "This is the beginning of Antichrist; yet previously Elias must prophecy, and there must be times of peace", and he goes on to talk about what will happen to the apostate angels.
It is not practically possible to "forge" the existence of these references in many thousands of manuscripts stored in many different places over the last two thousand years. If you think this has been happening, you are losing contact with reality, which is a dangerous thing to do.


and robinson wrote that it wasn't lucifer in the original book of daniel, cause he checked with some biblical scholars, and they said it was the name of some rich king who went up against israel and lost, and that he was nicknamed the "shining one" because of the way the sun glinted off of all of his gold accoutrements

I was puzzled by your original comments about "Lucifer being inserted into Daniel", because I don't know of any references to Lucifer in the book of Daniel. But I think I can see what's happening now. You've been getting confused. You're just not very clear in your mind about the difference between the concepts of "lucifer" and "antichrist", you can't really remember what you've read about them, and you're getting confused between the two.
OK, let's start from the beginning. There was a king in history called Antiochus Epiphanes. He had trouble with the Jews and vice-versa. There is a hostile king described in the last chapters of Daniel, who appears to be at least half-based on Antiochus Epiphanes. But many people understand it as also a description of the behaviour of the "Beast", or "antichrist" mentioned in Revelation. I think this is what you are getting at with your garbled references to "lucifer in Daniel"..
Now that we've got that straight, perhaps you can explain what the masons are suposed to gain from inserting that story?
edit on 15-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




I looked around at various places within the site, noting the use of tell-tale expressions like "Christ-consciousness". That was enough to tell me what was going on.
This is not a Biblical site. It is a New Age site, dressing up New Age teachings in Christian language (which is fairly standard procedure).


I see, its too bad you took a cursory look and then imposed your preconceived ideas over the whole because you missed a treasure trove of knowledge, wisdom, and new light.


I need to distinguish between two different kinds of "God within".
It all comes down to the question of origin
The New Testament describes the Holy Spirit as "dwelling within us", but the Spirit is not originating within us. That is the point. The Spirit has been "sent", from a God who is external to ourselves.
The Biblical God is identified as the Creator of the universe and everything within it, including you and me, and therefore external to ourselves.
That is precisely the God- "a God in heaven"- which that site repudiates, explicitly.


You are correct the sites definitely repudiates what you said here because it makes no sense and is certainly not biblical. In other words what you said is not biblical and not what the site teaches.

Luke 17 (KJV)
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

John 17:21.
That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

John 17:23.
I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one,

John 14:20.
In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

So how can the kingdom be within but external to us? So of we are all in the father and the father in us and all one with him as he and Christ are one then how can it be external to us?

I encourage you to have an open mind the scriptures are misunderstood largely by Christians. You seem to be a bit open minded from this post but you closed right up when something triped your preconceptions and all sorts of labels about new age and different God etc. came spewing out, if you take the time to understand and drop your preconceptions you would see that site does not repudiate the biblical God but actually reveals him more fully .


The essence of your version of "God within" is that it originates within us. That is a very different kind of picture. It doesn't matter how much one dresses it up in fancy spiritual language- if you focus on a "God" who is supposed to originate within you, then you are focussing upon yourself.


Actually no this is your preconception. I just showed you several scriptures that says God is within us and we within him and we are all one so we are part of God. The different picture is the one you paint that has nothing to do with with what the site teaches that you claim it is selfishness to seek the kingdom or god within. Luke 17:21 says specifically to seek within for the kingdom of God so it is your statement that is completely non biblical and nowhere in the bible is your belief taught or even hinted at.


So, on the one side, a God-centred Biblical religion.
On the other side, a religion which is focussed on something human, and therefore human-centred (have you seen my thread on the meaning of "666"?)
Or, putting it another way, a religion focussed on "what is within yourself", and therefore self-centred.


Well I have just proven the scriptures themselves you claim sanction your belief completely disagree with you. You seem determined to convince yourself that seeking the kingdom within is self centered. How do you reconcile this with the fact the Bible teaches to do just that?

Again: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.""

This says to not look externally but to look within.


Aspirations to do good don't alter the fact that the base of this approach is not the Biblical God, and therefore it is non-Biblical.


Ever heard of the Golden rule??? This make no sense at all considering the golden rule! Such aspirations to do good are the very focus of the biblical God!


(As I remarked before, the "making contact with other religions" aspect of that site is a very natural companion to this approach. The Biblical God is not compatible with other gods, which is the reason for the command "You shall have no other gods but me". So the Christian religion cannot be brought into unity with other religions unless the content of the Biblical teaching and understanding of the nature of the Biblical God is watered down first.)


I am not sure where you got the idea making contact with and bringing other religions into unity from the site because that is not what it teaches at all. Maybe you could quote what it is you read that lead you to that conclusion ?

As I said it sounds to me like you did not read enough to make a valid conclusion and are projecting a lot of preconceived ideas that just are not there on to the site. And you obviously need to study the bible much more carefully and more open mindedly and let the spirit of truth teach you instead of repeating the dogmas of the day friend...
edit on 16-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Luke 17 (KJV)
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

I will begin by pointing out that he did not say "within you". That phrase is a bad translation.
The wording in the original Greek is ENTOS HUMON, meaning "amongst you"; "in the midst of you", in some translations. That is to say, the Kingdom was already present in the middle of their society in the form of himself and those who followed him.
When Jesus began his teaching, in Matthew ch4 v17, the message was- ENGIKEN GAR HE BASILEIA. This can be translated either as "the kingdom is about to arrive" or "the kingdom has arrived". I've always thought there's a lot to be said for taking both meanings and holding them in tension. But the point of both meanings is that the kingdom is a new arrival on the scene. It has not been there all the time.

The next point is to consider in what way there is unity between the Son and the Father, and how Christians are brought into that unity.
The key to the whole thing is understanding that the relationship between the Father and the Son is unique. Christ is described in John ch1 v18 as MONOGENES HUIOS- "the only-begotten Son". So the Nicene Creed teaches that the Son was "begotten of his Father before all worlds", and that he was "not made", not part of Creation.
What is happening in that teaching from John is that Christians are being invited to join that relationship, at one level. The idea in those chapters is that the "sending" of the Holy Spirit has the effect of "attaching" the link which brings the believer into that sense of unity.
You have failed to notice the significance of that word "be made"; he would not be inviting them to be made "one" if they were in that position already. So phrases like "be made" and "that they may be" in themselves refute the idea that the unity is innate and exists already.
Similarly Paul writes in Galatians ch4 v4 that "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts", and the purpose of all this is that we should receive adoption as sons.
That word "adoption" is crucial. Once again, it implies becoming something which we were not previously.

Let me use an analogy.
If you are courting a royal princess, the princess might say to you "If you marry me, you will become a member of the royal family". That remark implies a number of things;
1) The princess is innately a member of the royal family.
2) You are not.
3) If you marry her, you will become a member of the family. You will be "adopted". Spend Christmas at Balmoral, etc.
4) If you don't marry her, you won't be a member of the family at all.
The comments in John can be applied in a similar way;
1) The Son is innately in union with the Father ("you and I are one")
2) We are not. Not innately.
3) We are being invited to join that unity, become part of it.
4) If we don't accept the invitation. we don't become part of it.



So how can the kingdom be within but external to us? So of we are all in the father and the father in us and all one with him as he and Christ are one then how can it be external to us?

Tell me, do people ever visit you at home?
If someone who is not a member of your family comes to visit you, that guest is simultaneously within your house, but also external to it, in the sense of having an external origin. They were not born there. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
If your guest happens to be your new mother-in-law (see previous analogy), then you will be related to her. She will be within your walls, and related to you, and yet she will not be one of your children.
That is how God can be external to us (in origin) and yet have a presence within us.


I am not sure where you got the idea making contact with and bringing other religions into unity from the site because that is not what it teaches at all. Maybe you could quote what it is you read that lead you to that conclusion ?

In the first place, I note the suggestion, found on the page "Principles of Unification", that all the gods of all the different religions of the world are fundamentally the same- one God "called by different names and descriptions".
(This claim is fundamentally contradicted by the command "You shall have no other gods but me", which necessarily implies that the Biblical God is NOT the same as any of the others).
So they are encouraging a sense of unity among the religions.

Then I look at the books which the site is encouraging visitors to read, and I find, right on top of the list;
Alice Bailey
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Isis Unveiled.
The Encyclopaedic Theosophical Library
Studies in occult philosophy
Bhagavad Gita
The Wisdom of the Buddha
Science and Health (Mary Baker Eddy)
In short, people are being directed towards non-Biblical religions for their spiritual guidance. A Christian site would not be doing that.

Incidentally, I did not suddenly decide to pin the "New Age" label on them. It did not come "spewing out".That label is part of their own self-description. The phrase "New Age" is plastered all over the site. They have set up links to a "New Age Directory" and "New Age Resources". They know perfectly well what they represent.

I'm a little puzzled to know what, in my OP, prompted you to think that I would be more "open-minded" in the sense you would approve. I spent whole paragraphs throwing around words like "abomination" and "idolatrous", and explaining how these words applied to the worship of gods other than the Biblical God. Surely that should have been a clue. I see nothing in the Bible telling me that being "open-minded" is a virtue, so the charge of not being open-minded is not going to make me feel guilty.

Finally, I had to smile at your charge that I was repeating "the dogmas of the day". The idea that God is "other" than ourselves has been the fundamental understanding of the Biblical God for the last three thousand years. Now you're coming up with some New Age stuff rooted in the comparatively recent products of Victorian esoteric orientalism. Surely you are the one who is "repeating the dogmas of the day".

edit on 16-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




I will begin by pointing out that he did not say "within you". That phrase is a bad translation.
The wording in the original Greek is ENTOS HUMON, meaning "amongst you"; "in the midst of you", in some translations.


That is not true. It is not a bad translation "Within you" is a perfectly legitimate translation also in both the greek and from hebrew word also

Strong's Number G1787 matches the Greek ἐντός (entos), which occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV
Page 1 / 1 (Mat 23:26 - Luk 17:21)

Mat 23:26 [Thou] blind5185 Pharisee5330, cleanse2511 first4412 that [which is] within1787 the cup4221 and2532 platter3953, that2443 the outside1622 of them846 may be1096 clean2513 also2532.

Luk 17:21 Neither3761 shall they say2046 , Lo2400 here5602! or2228, lo2400 there1563! for1063, behold2400 , the kingdom932 of God2316 is2076 within1787 you5216.

www.blueletterbible.org...

Both times it is translated as "within" and also both times its context denotes "within". Also in light of the context of Christ saying the father is in him and he in the father many times even that the Father "dwells in him" etc. clearly denotes that he was speaking of the Divine within us all.

And by the way having the divine within us in no way even insinuates the God originated in us, in fact just the opposite; that we originated in him!

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


So phrases like "be made" and "that they may be" in themselves refute the idea that the unity is innate and exists already.


Not at all it simply means for them to recognize they are already linked as one .


In the first place, I note the suggestion, found on the page "Principles of Unification", that all the gods of all the different religions of the world are fundamentally the same- one God "called by different names and descriptions".
(This claim is fundamentally contradicted by the command "You shall have no other gods but me", which necessarily implies that the Biblical God is NOT the same as any of the others).
So they are encouraging a sense of unity among the religions


The site promotes unity among all peoples and religions SO THEY CAN COEXIST PEACFULLY instead of fighting over whose religion or politics is better. They are not trying to create a new religion. And the acknowledging that though they may call him by different names he is the same God who created us all does not promote many Gods but the one.

You wondered why I thought you were a bit open minded and now so am I wondering why I thought that.
I doubt you have read the books listed yet you judge them simply because they are not biblical, your faith in the Nicene creed a Roman construct shows just how rigid you are in your beliefs and why you choose to try and project your preconceptions into anything that challenges your status quo without really giving it a fair hearing. And you tried to call me dogmatic LOL! Even the bible looks forward to a new age of peace... Oh well one day you will wake up eventually.

edit on 16-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Have you heard of something called the Incarnation?
Did you notice the point about Christ being the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son?
That means that Christ is the ONLY one in that position.
That is true about himself and the Father uniquely, not about anyone else and the Father.


Not at all it simply means for them to recognize they are already linked as one .

This flies against the plain use of language. To "become" something involves a change of state.

Your claim that "God is within us, and not external to us" is indeed a dogma- it just happens to be the dogma of a different kind of religion. And how on earth can you claim to believe that "we originated in him" if you have already denied that he exists external to ourselves?
You can believe whatever you want, but if something is being presented as Christian and Biblical when it is nothing of the kind, I will continue to expose the falsehood.
"See that no-one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit"- Colossians ch2 v8

]
edit on 16-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



you notice the point about Christ being the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son?
That means that Christ is the ONLY one in that position.
That is true about himself and the Father uniquely, not about anyone else and the Father.


Christ says we are all sons and daughters of God, also that we are gods, and he is the first of many brethren , and that we will do greater things then we see him do etc. etc. He was the first to rise to a higher level of consciousness by over coming all things. We are to become like him and rise to his level. If we can become one with him and the father then we are of the same species so to speak and can become like him. Step out of your box the air is getting stale in there...


This flies against the plain use of language. To "become" something involves a change of state.


You mean like "becoming" aware of something you weren't aware of before? Such as the kingdom of God already being within you?



You can believe whatever you want, but if something is being presented as Christian and Biblical when it is nothing of the kind, I will continue to expose the falsehood.


LOL Of course I can and do believe what I want and always will. I don't limit myself by dogmas and fear based religions. I seek truth where ever it is found whether in the bible Alice Bailey or Marvel comics and confirm it through reason logic and the inner voice or holy spirit if you will, the bible does not have a corner on the truth.

I never claimed nor the site never claimed to be Christian and for good reason as I have shown; you and most modern traditional so called Christians are not biblical themselves and have little understanding of what the Bible teaches because you limit yourself to dogmas taught over the pulpit through fear of an angry God who will punish you if you don't conform. The only thing you have exposed is your emotional attachment to your dogmatic beliefs and complete unwillingness to question those beliefs and consider anything outside of your traditions.
edit on 16-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





And how on earth can you claim to believe that "we originated in him" if you have already denied that he exists external to ourselves?


If we are in him and he in us then he is not external to us. He is the body in which we exist. Are you external to your kidneys? They haver thier distinction as kidneys but are a part of the whole that comprises your body. Why must God be external to us for him to be real to you?

Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

edit on 16-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The harlot of Babylon is God's church in its flesh and blood state. I want to say the Christian church but it's too exclusive. I must say All who would be called by the name of Christ but the majority of this group would be Christians.

This church has been allowed to prosper in Babylon, but it's time to come out. This does not mean denouncing the faith, this means it's time shed the flesh and blood. This was the marriage vow the church took when it ate the bread/flesh of Christ and drank the cup of wine. This is not as simple as a ring on the finger, she agreed to drink the same cup as Christ and be baptized with the same baptism.

That is why the 10 kings that rule with the beast shall eat her flesh (as she ate the bread of Christ) and burn her with fire (persecution/same cup that Christ drank from). She shall shed her blood as Christ did. These are the marriage vows.

Should she keep her marriage vows, her corrupt body shall be made incorrupt and the marriage will be consummated. She has prevented herself from remaining in a state of harlotry, she proved to be truly the woman in heaven nourished not only in flesh but in Spirit also and she was prepared to meet the bridegroom at night. The two become one.

A lot of Christians will not be able to do this. They will be lukewarm Christians remaining in interfaith with the rest of the worlds religions. This is the woman nourished in the flesh only, the harlot of Babylon who took the mark, sided with the beast. These two also shall become one.
edit on 16-11-2010 by iamnot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


the knight templars aka freemasons, what have they to gain? since some consider the "G" in the center of their interlocked t-square and compass insignia to refer to "god encompassed", i shall put forth my own pet beast theory, the "fournicating templorseyholes of the apocalypse"....they get to play god, or at least have the power of death over life

KJV The Revelation of St. John the Divine
13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

if you count the number of a beast who is a man, six hundred AND three score six, six hundred counts to ten, and three score six counts to thirteen

this is the arrest date of the knights templar in their original home base in france in 1307

so, is the beast who is a man a horse-mounted knight chevalier, which is how the original templars mostly did battle

the only phrase that uses the word armageddon is in this same book, and it has 10 letters in it, and there are 13 words in the phrase before armageddon

also in the phrase which has the selling of the "souls of men", souls of men has 10 letters, and their are 13 other items for sale before it

the revelation of saint john the divine has 33 letters in it, which is the degree of the knights templar in at least one masonic order

there are 22 chapters in this book, and 11 22 was the date in the 1300s of their declaration of being anathema heretics by the then french pope of the catholic church, and also the assassination date of john f kennedy, the only catholic president in the history of the united states

jesus was crucified at a place called golgotha, which means "skull", so he was made into a living skull and crossed bones

the knights templar used a skull and crossed bones as one of their battle standards during the crusades, and also after they were kicked out of france as they fled in their fleet of former crusading ships, as it meant no quarter asked for or given

one of the verses golgotha is mentioned in the new testament is a 33, the knights templar degree in at least one masonic rite, the american york

Revelation, chapter 6

8: And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
===================
so can it be assumed for fournicating templorseyhole purposes, since their original templar poor knights of st. john official medallion had two templars on one horse for a battle templorseyhole unit, that Death was the doughty knight up front, and that Hell was the spunky squire bringing up the rear?

also illustrates their razor sharp extra-deep blood gutter sense of humor

"sirrah, what follows Death"
"dunno, what"
"why, Hell, of course"
"ha ha ha, s'wounds, haaaah"



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iamnot
 

Thank you for those comments.
They're not all that far removed, in principle, from the comments I was making in the first part of this theme, "the other woman", when I was focussing on the unfaithfulness of the church. The division between unfaithfulness and idolatry is a little artificial, but the only way I could cope with this picture was to break it down into something more manageable. The disobedience of the church is one kind of unfaithfulness. The comment about the "trampling over the holy city", in ch11, is partly an echo of the complaint in Isaiah addressed to the disobedient Judah; "Who requires of you this trampling of my courts?"- Isaiah ch1 v12

But I had a different emphasis in the other piece. I was concentrating more specifically on unfaithfulness as transference of loyalty to the Beast, and setting that in the future. So naturally the necessity to "move out" was also set in the future.





edit on 17-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
If we are in him and he in us then he is not external to us. He is the body in which we exist. Are you external to your kidneys? They haver thier distinction as kidneys but are a part of the whole that comprises your body. Why must God be external to us for him to be real to you?

I am not external to my kidneys, but I don't attempt to communicate with my kidneys or attempt any kind of personal relationship with them.

There are two trends running all the way through the Bible which identify God as external to ourselves, as "other" than ourselves.

One is the clear teaching from beginning to the end of the Bible that God is the Creator. That is part of God's self-description. The act of "Creation" is the act of bringing into existence something "other" than oneself. It is stressed over and over again that God and the created world are two very distinct things. We are part of the created world. therefore we are not "part of" God. God "sustains" the created world- keeps it in being. But the created world itself is not God.

The other trend is the fact that this God is a "self-revealing" God. He communicates with people, has a personal relationship with them. Over the Bible as a whole this develops into a communication with and a relationship with a whole community of people. But, as I've already observed, nobody has personal relationships with parts of themselves. You have personal relationships with other people, people who are not yourself. Over and over again, people are faced with the choice between participating in the relationship, in obedience, or finding themselves excluded. The "parts of the body" analogy does not suit it self to that choice; the better analogy is one of inviting or not inviting someone else into your home, accepting or not accepting an invitation.

The running theme of the Bible is a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. You need to be someone other than the Creator of the universe for that to become possible.

PS I attach a link to my personal definition of God;
One-and-a-half-ism; Defining the Christian God
edit on 17-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Christ says we are all sons and daughters of God, also that we are gods, and he is the first of many brethren , and that we will do greater things then we see him do etc. etc. He was the first to rise to a higher level of consciousness by over coming all things.

This outline is thoroughly unbiblical.
There is a clear distinction in the New testament between the way that Christ is a Son, and the way that we are sons and daughters (except for those who have chosen not to become sons and daughters).
Christ is the one who is born into the family, as it were.
As I have pointed out already, he is the MONOGENES HUIOS- the only-begotten Son.
That word "only" means "unique", "singular" "unaccompanied", "solitary", "individual", (I own a copy of Roget's Thesaurus)
In short, there's only one of them.
Whereas the rest of us enter the family by adoption, as described in the passage from Galatians which I have already quoted. To make a previous analogy very topical, it is the difference between Prince William being born into the Royal Family, and Kate Middleton entering the Royal Family by marriage, taking his name. (Traditionally, she becomes "Princess William", but I expect they'll abandon that one). Similarly, Christ is the one who was born into the family, and the rest of us become sons by taking his name.

And there is nothing in the New Testament about Christ starting at our level and rising. On the contrary, in that very same gospel of John that you love to quote, he claims frequently that he comes "from above", that he was "sent" from God. The story told in the New Testament is that he starts at God's level, descends to our level, and then re-ascends, taking us with him.
See that mountain over there? You can't fly up to the top of it, because you haven't got the wings. But if someone who lives there and does have the wings flies down and collects you, that's how you get there. Sitting around convincing yourself that you've already got a pair of wings is not going to do it. That's how we become adopted members of the family of God, by attaching ourselves to someone who was born into it.


The only thing you have exposed is your emotional attachment to your dogmatic beliefs and complete unwillingness to question those beliefs and consider anything outside of your traditions.

And this is somehow worse than your determination to push the opposite viewpoint?
At least I'm being obedient to the primary Biblical command, which is "You shall have no other gods than me".
If you can point me to a passage where God says "Go on, worship any god you like, I don't mind", I'll obey that one instead.

You remarked in a different post that I had "condemned without reading" the books on that list.
Well, to be exact, I identified them as books associated with non-Christian religions. And I can do that without reading them if the titles themselves give it away, especially when the titles are so notorious. Do you need to read Mein Kampf to identify it as a book which is not encouraging Communism? No, not if you've got any knowledge of history.

edit on 17-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Blue, purple and scarlet were the most regal colors to the Hebrews. The ten commandments are said to have been written in blue sapphire.

The laws of God pave the way to heaven.

Exodus 24:10
And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

The harlot is missing the blue color. She is dressed only in red and purple signifying her beauty and royalty but unfaithfulness because she is without the laws of God.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by iamnot
 

Thank you for those comments.
That's some useful additional information, which I didn't have.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join