Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Jesus Carry The Mark Of The Beast?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Your argument needs exact numbers to work.
Something it doesn't have.
Jesus could have been 34 when he was crucified.
Which would mess up your math.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
Your argument needs exact numbers to work.
Something it doesn't have.
Jesus could have been 34 when he was crucified.
Which would mess up your math.


Go ask any religious historian in regards to the given numbers I've supplied.
Growing up R.C. and studying differernt religions as an adult, these numbers
are ALWAYS used to portray the life of Jesus.

By your assumption - the life of Jesus according to the Bible is fictitious.
I used historical numbers that have ALWAYS been equated to the Jesus myth
to come upon my conclusion.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
Revelation 13:16-18

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Looks plain and simple to me.
Mark of the beast is a literal mark on the hand or forehead.


Okay, so maybe we do or don't know his exact age at certain times. However, the Revelation passage specifically states it is a physical mark. So this seems like case closed to me. Yet, somehow, I predict a good old fashion 'dead horse beating' coming.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by GmoS719
Your argument needs exact numbers to work.
Something it doesn't have.
Jesus could have been 34 when he was crucified.
Which would mess up your math.


Go ask any religious historian in regards to the given numbers I've supplied.
Growing up R.C. and studying differernt religions as an adult, these numbers
are ALWAYS used to portray the life of Jesus.

By your assumption - the life of Jesus according to the Bible is fictitious.
I used historical numbers that have ALWAYS been equated to the Jesus myth
to come upon my conclusion.


Again I don't think the biblical account of Jesus is fictitious.
I can understand why you are attacking me because you know you're wrong.

You prove it in the quote above.
Historians are guessing. Yes they are educated guesses but that doesn't change anything.
My point is your math and argument need exact numbers.
Something you don't have.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals

Originally posted by GmoS719
Revelation 13:16-18
and his number is 666.


Okay, so maybe we do or don't know his exact age at certain times. However, the Revelation passage specifically states it is a physical mark. So this seems like case closed to me. Yet, somehow, I predict a good old fashion 'dead horse beating' coming.


I did not make the number up.
It is clealry written in Revelations.
The number associated with the mark of the beast on man is 666.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ratcals
 


Because a book written hundreds of years after... aka "revelations"

This is some how infalible? Wow you have very low standards.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Yes, but it is a LITERAL MARK on the hand or forehead. Not a derivation of some numerology theory.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
I can understand why you are attacking me because you know you're wrong.


Why is it that youi feel I've 'attacked' you..?
Have I called you names or insulted you?
Have I swore at you or demeaned you in any way?

Or is it that you feel threatened with your assumption
of my mathematical arguement?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Written a hundred years after what?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals
Yes, but it is a LITERAL MARK on the hand or forehead. Not a derivation of some numerology theory.


Your remark befuddles me -

Do you think I was the creator of the number 666 and it's
reference to mankind?

It is in Revelations.. ..and I did not write Revelations or any part of
the Bible for that matter.

I only reference it for a quest for truth.
edit on 23-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: spelling errors



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by GmoS719
I can understand why you are attacking me because you know you're wrong.


Why is it that youi feel I've 'attacked' you..?
Have I called you names or insulted you?
Have I swore at you or demeaned you in any way?

Or is it that you feel threatened with your assumption
of my mathematical arguement?


You attacked me by claiming that I don't believe in the biblical account of Jesus.
When in reality I just don't believe in your ridiculous theory.

Your theory has been proven wrong and irrelevant.
Bout time you left.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
All bs aside I challenge you to back up your claims.

What year was Jesus born?
What year was he crucified?
Show me definitive proof he was crucified at 33.

With out this your theory is nothing.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by ratcals
Yes, but it is a LITERAL MARK on the hand or forehead. Not a derivation of some numerology theory.


Your remark befuddles me -

Do you think I was the creator of the number 666 and it's
reference to mankind?

It is in Revelations.. ..and I did not write Revelations or any part of
the Bible for that matter.

I only reference it for a quest for truth.
edit on 23-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: spelling errors


I'm not sure where your lack of comprehension is stemming from. My remark seems very clear. The bible states it is a literal mark of 666 on the individual. Not some type of fancy math done with numbers associated with the person. I never said anything about you being the creator of the number. Where did that even come from? Especially considering I specifically stated the Revelations passage where the number is described. Are you intentionally trying to twist what I say?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I don't subscribe to your BULLY tactics
so save it for someone else when you
choose to tell someone it's time for them to leave.

This is a discussion on a Forum; a Forum based on
contriversial topics.
A Forum predominantly made of conspiratists.

Did you forget this is ATS..?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by ratcals
Yes, but it is a LITERAL MARK on the hand or forehead. Not a derivation of some numerology theory.


Your remark befuddles me -

Do you think I was the creator of the number 666 and it's
reference to mankind?

It is in Revelations.. ..and I did not write Revelations or any part of
the Bible for that matter.

I only reference it for a quest for truth.
edit on 23-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: spelling errors


I'm not sure where your lack of comprehension is stemming from. My remark seems very clear. The bible states it is a literal mark of 666 on the individual. Not some type of fancy math done with numbers associated with the person. I never said anything about you being the creator of the number. Where did that even come from? Especially considering I specifically stated the Revelations passage where the number is described. Are you
intentionally trying to twist what I say?


He has twisted everything I've said and ignored my arguments that prove him wrong.
I think its a defense mechanism.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by GmoS719
 


I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I don't subscribe to your BULLY tactics
so save it for someone else when you
choose to tell someone it's time for them to leave.

This is a discussion on a Forum; a Forum based on
contriversial topics.
A Forum predominantly made of conspiratists.

Did you forget this is ATS..?


I've already proved you wrong.
It's your op.
It's up to you to make your argument.

I just provided you a way to do that but you can't.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals
I'm not sure where your lack of comprehension is stemming from. My remark seems very clear. The bible states it is a literal mark of 666 on the individual. Not some type of fancy math done with numbers associated with the person. I never said anything about you being the creator of the number. Where did that even come from? Especially considering I specifically stated the Revelations passage where the number is described. Are you intentionally trying to twist what I say?


My lack of comprehension..?
My post talks SPECIFICALY of the number 666 and NOTHING else.

So, no I am not twisting your words - merely pointing out
what I initially wrote.

What is the mark on the hand or forehead to resemble..?

The Bible states the number 666..how much clearer can that be..?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
I've already proved you wrong.
It's your op.
It's up to you to make your argument.

I just provided you a way to do that but you can't.


You have provided a claim - not proof.
Your theory is no more valid than the claim I substantiate.

And yet your ego allows you to tell me "it's time for me to leave."



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by ratcals
I'm not sure where your lack of comprehension is stemming from. My remark seems very clear. The bible states it is a literal mark of 666 on the individual. Not some type of fancy math done with numbers associated with the person. I never said anything about you being the creator of the number. Where did that even come from? Especially considering I specifically stated the Revelations passage where the number is described. Are you intentionally trying to twist what I say?


My lack of comprehension..?
My post talks SPECIFICALY of the number 666 and NOTHING else.

So, no I am not twisting your words - merely pointing out
what I initially wrote.

What is the mark on the hand or forehead to resemble..?

The Bible states the number 666..how much clearer can that be..?


IN THE LITERAL SENSE!! I'm done with you. Enjoy your ignorance.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by GmoS719
I've already proved you wrong.
It's your op.
It's up to you to make your argument.

I just provided you a way to do that but you can't.


You have provided a claim - not proof.
Your theory is no more valid than the claim I substantiate.

And yet your ego allows you to tell me "it's time for me to leave."


Again you are ignoring the questions.
What year was Jesus born?
What year was Jesus crucified?
Definitive proof that Jesus was Crucified at the age of 33.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join