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.

 

Who Are The "Synagogue of Satan", The "Jews" Who Are Not Jews", Mentioned In Revelation?

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by 168617
 

But the original biblical intent also states that the Israelites were given the Holyland conditionally. The conditions were that they were righteous and righteous in the Bible is upholding the laws of God. This is another part that Zionists omitted on purpose.
I think they just redefined what "holy" means, to the point that it is a natural attribute of someone of their race.
And other races are naturally just awful, so they seem righteous in comparison (in their own opinion).


The intent of Israel and religious law wasn't just for Israel but humanity as one. The modern day Jews use the Talmud which is a rabbical book with teachings that do not represent the Torah. There is a lot of hate in that book and I believe this is where they get that "We are the master race" attitude from. Firstly, Jews are not a race so they don't know what they are on about.
edit on 10-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 

. . . the actual Antichrist has not shown himself to the world just yet.
That's like a modern urban myth.
There isn't a person, "the antichrist" in the Bible.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by 168617
 

. . . the actual Antichrist has not shown himself to the world just yet.
That's like a modern urban myth.
There isn't a person, "the antichrist" in the Bible.


Then if that's the case then the Antichrist is ruling from Jerusalem right now because Israel is not under Jewish religious law and the Jews aren't actually Torah practicing Jews but Athiests who don't believe in the laws of God.

edit on 10-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 

The modern day Jews use the Talmud which is a rabbical book with teachings that do not represent the Torah.
The Book of Esther, too.
Purim is significant and is used by Israel to time certain events on, such as the fire bombing of the retreating Iraqi tanks in the first Gulf War.
Also the first NATO bombing of Libya in that war.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by 168617
 

The modern day Jews use the Talmud which is a rabbical book with teachings that do not represent the Torah.
The Book of Esther, too.
Purim is significant and is used by Israel to time certain events on, such as the fire bombing of the retreating Iraqi tanks in the first Gulf War.
Also the first NATO bombing of Libya in that war.



I'll have to look into that one but I'm sure they know what they are doing at all times.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

The name 'Jesus' is Late Latin, i.o.w. circa 3rd to 7th centuries AD, so it was never used of him in his lifetime! It's the Catholic version, of the Greek Orthodox version 'Iesous', from the Hebrew original, 'Yeshua'.
'Iesous' is not Greek Orthodox, it is Greek, which was the common language of the eastern Roman Empire of the time of Christ, including the Jewish Diaspora, which Jesus was part of, living in Egypt and gentile Galilee.



*L* By what name do the Greek Orthodox congregations call the Son of God then?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

The word 'antichrist' which is in the Bible, exactly describes this situation. The word 'anti' means 'against' and it also means 'in place of'. Thus 'antichrist' means 'in place of' who? Christ!
That is some pretty twisted logic but still doesn't reinforce your fantasy scenario of a fake christ.
If there was such a thing, I would think the Bible would say so, but it doesn't.
It's just someone's imagination running wild to create this impossible situation in order to say that it must not have happened yet.
Well I feel sorry for anyone who buys into such nonsense.
The world as it is has enough evil to suffice, and we should be dealing with that instead of being scared into inaction by something we think is inevitable.


edit on 10-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Twisted? No. That's just logical, but you can't 'see' it.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

*L* By what name do the Greek Orthodox congregations call the Son of God then?
Their use of the name does not prove that they invented the name.
It existed for hundreds of years before the church.
It is ultimately, of course derived from the name of Joshua, son of Nun, in the book of Exodus, but that doesn't mean that is Jesus' "real" name.
It is true that before the time of Christ, that certain overly fanatical Jews objected to other Jews using Greek names but that only proves how common the practice was.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

Twisted? No. That's just logical, but you can't 'see' it.
No.
You take "anti" and say it can mean against or instead of, then go on to imply that therefore it means both, then create a fantasy scenario to make it work, how someone can be against and replacing Christ at the same time.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

Revelation 13:2 'And the Beast [from the sea] which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon [Satan*] gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority...'
It is being used as a figure of speech to mean power, not a literal throne.

In case you doubt that the reference to the 'dragon' above refers to Satan, this verse proves it. * Revelation 12:9 'And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world...'
John saw a dragon in vision.
It has certain attributes which fit those of the mythical entities so named.

In Daniel Chapter 7, the reference to 'time, times and half a time' is of each year being a 'time' = three and a half prophetic years [each of 360 days#], which is equal to 42 months, which is equal to 180 weeks, which is equal to 1,260 days. When you cross reference these instances mentioned in the Bible, you will get the cross-references referring to the Tribulation.
So then what does it have to do with chapter 9 and the abomination of desolation?

When you cross reference these instances mentioned in the Bible, you will get the cross-references referring to the Tribulation.
What?
That doesn't mean anything.
You need to try harder, at least show your steps of logic that gets you to your conclusion.
You make a big mash-up and expect that to back up your theory.


edit on 10-4-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Sorry, I'll try to adjust my points to your level of understanding.

I said: The Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place heralds the start of the Tribulation, which lasts specifically for 1,260 days but it is said these days are shortened, otherwise no flesh would survive . . .
You said:


Jesus never mentions the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel, just the "the abomination that causes desolation" (2011 NIV).


My points are:
1. 70 weeks is only 490 days - not 1,260 days, spoken of by Daniel as 'time, times and half a time' or in other words, three and a half prophetic years of 360 days each, which equals 1,260 days.
2. Abomination of Desolation means 'a false god or idol who causes religious desolation'.
3. The Antichrist is the cause of the religious desolation, and is the abomination. If you follow him, you are spiritually destitute.
4. The Antichrist / Little Horn / Beast from the Sea / Eighth Head, etc. are all references to the same person, whom I refer to collectively as the Antichrist. He reigns for 3.5 years, which is 42 months, which is also 1,260 days; makes war against the saints, and overcomes them - to purge, refine, and make white the elect saints of God.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

Sorry, I'll try to adjust my points to your level of understanding.
By all means, do.
I have mentioned on this forum that I am a Seventh Day Adventist, and they are real big on the various "days" prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, so I am familiar with the concept, but thanks for breaking that down for the rest of the readers.
I have to stick with my earlier point, which is what is the connection to what Jesus said about the Roman attack on Jerusalem, and some other (hypothetical) future tribulation?

4. The Antichrist / Little Horn / Beast from the Sea / Eighth Head, etc. are all references to the same person, whom I refer to collectively as the Antichrist.
You said "Antichrist" twice, as if the first mention bolsters the second. You made up both.
The little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.
The eighth head was one of the Caesars, or maybe the idea that the assassination of the first Caesar did not stop the practice of people declaring themselves Caesar.
The "Beast from the Sea" was from the abyss, the Leviathan.
The beast from the earth was the Behemoth.
They both represent primordial chaos.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 


The Antichrist is not only limited to a person but could be a country, a corporation, even a religious institution or even all three put together. So assuming that the Israel of today is Antichrist, then one would have to work out how this country came into being. If you go back through the last century you would find that England actually set this up for the Zionists. When England had done their bit, then the USA were and still are Israel's closest ally.

Can anything from the Beasts be used to determine whether these countries are a candidate? Well to me there is a little bit of supporting evidence. Firstly the 1st beast rises from the sea and if you do a little bit of research you will find that England was the strongest naval power prior to WW1 (even earlier than that).


The British Empire relied on its military and economic strength to further its aim. This process largely began after the end of the English Civil War which pinned King against Parliament and ended with the dictatorship of a highly talented but authoritarian general Oliver Cromwell in 1649. At this time the navy began to develop, eventually it would become the most powerful in the world. It would rely on foreign trade by English merchants for its finance.

And in return the navy would provide the English merchant class with access to foreign markets through war and coercion whenever needed. This paper will primarily deal with the development of the navy from the period 1649-1815, which is the subject of N.A.M Roger’s groundbreaking book, The Command of the Ocean. After studying the development of the English navy from 1649-1815, it is clear that it played a crucial role in establishing Great Britain as the foremost, military, economic and imperial power in the world by the end of the Napoleonic wars.


Now the other clue given in the book of revelation is the description of the beast and to me this could be the proof that England was the first Beast.



Now the beast which I saw was like a Leopard,



his feet were like the feet of a bear,



and his mouth like the mouth of a Lion. The Dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority


Now the other thing I want to touch upon is the first part of Revelation 13 and though I don't know about the 10 crowns, the 7 heads could be explained by this below.


Before the Viking attacks in the last quarter of the ninth century, the new homeland of the Englisc was divided into several kingdoms, governed mainly by rulers who traced their ancestry back to the god Woden. There were seven main kingdoms,

1) Northumbria, (Angles living North of the River Humber.) This eventually stretched to Edinburgh – created by Edwin a Saxon war lord (Edwins Town.)
2) Mercia (Middle Angles.)
3) East Anglia (East Angles.)
4) Essex (East Saxons.)
5) Wessex (West Saxons.) This eventually took in Cornwall, which became fully English.
6) Sussex (South Saxons.)
7) Kent (Formed from the original Jutes who landed with Hengist in 449 AD and who formed the ‘Men of Kent’)


Hence late in the sixteenth century the term “Heptarchy” was coined to describe this period of our history. Sometimes competing or warring with each other, sometimes helping each other. England was not be properly unified until 937 AD. But read on and discover the regions of England and their origins.

History of England


Now this is what I would expect when arguing about religious prophecy because when it comes down to it, this will play out in our world if there is any legitimacy in it. Remember though, England were the country who annexed Palestine after this below. The rest of the information about the first beast could also fall under England.



And soon after the USA would take the reigns and become the closest ally to modern day Israel. Now is there anything that would link the USA to the second beast? Well I'll let you's work that out. BTW, this is only my opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

Twisted? No. That's just logical, but you can't 'see' it.
No.
You take "anti" and say it can mean against or instead of, then go on to imply that therefore it means both, then create a fantasy scenario to make it work, how someone can be against and replacing Christ at the same time.



Maybe you should think of the word 'impostor' or 'counterfeit' instead, to understand my point, because I'm sure you're the only person who doesn't 'get it'! (I discuss this with you more for the sake of those who will read and understand; rather than trying to convince you.)

Do you really think that a counterfeit Christ is being Christ's good mate and best friend, and acting on his behalf with the best of intentions?

More to the point, check the source of the meaning of 'anti' in Greek according to Strong's no 473,
Definition :
over against, opposite to, before
for, instead of, in place of (something) instead of
for
for that, because
wherefore, for this cause
Source: www.biblestudytools.com...
[Emphases in bold are mine.]



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


What a jumble of characters that don't show any relevance or connection to God's overall plan. These identifications make no sense at all.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

Do you really think that a counterfeit Christ is being Christ's good mate and best friend, and acting on his behalf with the best of intentions?
OK, where in the Bible do you get this supposed counterfeit Christ from?
People saying "I am he"?
Jesus said, "many will come", so that is not about a single person, the antichrist.
And if they say "I am the Messiah", then that is a bit anachronistic if it is something that is supposed to happen in our future, rather than the future of the disciples who he was talking to.
This is my question, how do you get this theoretical person out of the Bible without ignoring everything in a verse except for one word which you combine with a word each from a couple more verse, until you get what you want?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

Do you really think that a counterfeit Christ is being Christ's good mate and best friend, and acting on his behalf with the best of intentions?
OK, where in the Bible do you get this supposed counterfeit Christ from?
People saying "I am he"?
Jesus said, "many will come", so that is not about a single person, the antichrist.
And if they say "I am the Messiah", then that is a bit anachronistic if it is something that is supposed to happen in our future, rather than the future of the disciples who he was talking to.
This is my question, how do you get this theoretical person out of the Bible without ignoring everything in a verse except for one word which you combine with a word each from a couple more verse, until you get what you want?



*L* Oh well, you've got your own theoretical opinions.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

TTAA2012
St. John the Revelator, when writing to the various churches in the early Christian world, mentions the "Synagogue of Satan" twice; once in Rev. 2:9 when he is writing to the Church in Smyrna, and then again in Rev. 3:9 when he addresses the Church in Philadelphia - both of which are located in modern day Turkey.


I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. ~ REV. 2:9

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.
~ REV. 3:9


So who are these "Jews who are not Jews?" A lot of people are going to come back with the old pat answer "It's the Khazars, the Ashkenazi." I'm sorry, but that answer is not good enough. I have a hard time believing that 92% of the world's Jewish population are not Jews at all, especially when Ashkenaz - the patriarch of that particular line - is one of Noah's great grandchildren his son Japeth. That provable fact leaves no doubt that Ashkenaz was a Jew - therefore his descendants must also be Jewish.

If the Ashkenazi are genetically Jewish - As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever tried to claim that Sephardic Jews are not really Jewish - we are still left with the question, "Who are the 'Jews who are not Jews' that make up the Synagogue of Satan?"

That is the question I pose to the membership of ATS (Please leave ALL antisemitism at the door.)

===========================================================================

*NOTE - The following may, or may not, have any bearing on this discussion, but I'll put it out there anyway:


12. “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13. I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.
~ Rev. 3: 12-13


The angel is telling John, and he is telling us, that Satan "lives", or has his HQ/Throne, in Asia Minor. I find this interesting because the Antichrist is, according to some, supposed to be Jewish; and this is not only the same area that the Ashkenazi originally come from, it is also the land of Magog.

ALL seven of the churches that St. John was instructed to write to are in Asia Minor, modern day Turkey - the land of Magog - and are not far apart geographically. As I stated earlier, the Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Gomer who settled in what is now Turkey after the Great Flood. In the Book of Ezekiel, this area is the home of Gog, the leader of the forces that Satan musters to attack Israel in the Gog/Magog War described in Ezekiel 38-39.

In case anyone has not seen the news recently, the Gog/Magog war is about to erupt in the Middle-east with Syria being the epicenter. Every one of the so-called "Arab Spring" countries - with the addition of Iran and Russia (Persia and Rosh) - are mentioned in Ezekiel as attacking Israel in this war which, by the way, is NOT the Battle of Armageddon.


Ezekiel 38:1-6

1. Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
2. “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
3. and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.
4. I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords.
5. Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet;
6. Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you.


If any of you would like to take that into account when you answer, please feel free to do so. Could it be that the "Jews who are not Jews", the "Synagogue of Satan," really are GENETIC Jews; but spiritually corrupt Jews who have turned their backs on the God of Abraham in order to serve the Devil?

What say you ATS?



Well that's interesting but I have another take on it. It's a Christian thing..

Paul called for all believers to be spiritual Jews - John knew this of course and taught the same thing.. Here's is how Paul put it saying Jews are Not real Jews because they do not believe in the Christ God sent or in the baptism that makes one a Christian.


Romans Chapter 2 22 - 29

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


He's alluding to Baptism here in the later verses and the process of how one becomes a believer. Since the Jews denied Christ, none of them are real Jews any longer unless they repent and believe on the Christ by being baptized in the name of jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

*L*
So this is your admitting that you just made up the antichrist from your imagination and then invented a little game to pretend that it is in the Bible.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Christians are Jews who aren't really Jews.




top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join