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.

 

Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Acts 15
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.


So first it is Peter who is speaking, then it says that the assembly listened to Paul and Barnabas speaking. Where did Peter go?

This is the ONLY mention of Peter throughout this chapter, so why did it turn from Peter speaking to Paul speaking? And why is he omitted from the rest of the chapter AND the rest of Acts? I would think they would have said "Paul, Barnabas, AND Peter speaking", but no, they only mention that Paul and Barnabas were speaking, right after saying that it was Peter who was speaking! That's strange in my opinion.

I think this was done intentionally by Luke.
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I have been studying the Bible as allegory for a number of years and you are partly right about Paul being a Trojan Horse, but you do not have the complete context. Christianity began as a form of Gnosticism which exposed the allegoric secrets of the Old Testament, which were also known and employed by other elitist groups that were part of a massive conspiracy to keep mankind enslaved by controlling the flow of knowledge. There was an effort to simply destroy all records of this betrayal of an ancient secret, but this apparently was not enough. Philo, and others like him, began a campaign of disinformation. They admitted to the allegoric nature of the Books of Moses, but created interpretations that simply stacked metaphors on top of other metaphors and left the impression that hidden meanings had been placed there by God himself. (These distorted interpretations were greatly aided by the fact that many real world ideas can be represented with numerous metaphors.) Paul was undoubtedly part of this campaign and he helped transform Gnosticism from the inside. (Ever wonder how Neo really defeated Agent Smith?) It is likely that the original Gnostics did not use the Christ metaphor and would have never dubbed themselves with the name “Christians”. The “coming of Christ” led to their “salvation” and the “forgiveness” of their “sins”.

You also mentioned that you saw a connection between the names "Cephas" and "Caiaphas". Well, you are right here, and you can point to Plato's Cratylus for support (and while you are at it, look to see what Plato says about “demons” here also). However, don't you also see something in regards to the names of the 1st Century historians Tranquillus and Tacitus? These silent historians, as well as Josephus, were also involved in the cover-up as to Christianity's origin. The Christians were the Zealots and the war that they fought in 66-73CE served as an excellent opportunity for their enemies to at least destroy the evidence as to their origin. (The revolt within a revolt that took place inside of the besieged Jerusalem in 70CE undoubtedly represented a fight between the Gnostics and the Pauline Christians.) Emperor Vespasian also owed his rise to power to Josephus and his allies and thus he cooperated in the “rebirth” of Christianity.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 



(The revolt within a revolt that took place inside of the besieged Jerusalem in 70CE undoubtedly represented a fight between the Gnostics and the Pauline Christians.)


you have any references on this theory?

Quite interesting!


edit on 12-2-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Very interesting thread. I love reading this sort of stuff. But I think there is a problem here. And that is reading into these gospels as if they are true historical documents. My information tells me this. The entire Christian church is a made up religion, founded on the teachings of THREE separate Jesus' all of who were crucified at or around the same time. Jesus was a common name, one today we call "Joshua." But it was also a title, given to those among the Jews who sought to bring them back to their godly ways. Paul never knew any Jesus. Most likely his name was NOT Saul. I believe he covered up his true name for fear of retribution. So he wove a tale about himself. Everything he said and did was a lie, a myth. He used the myths of Mithra and Pythagoras and the Persians, just as had been done by the early Old Testament writers. (Paul had been a scribe and a Pharisee, so he would have had access to a lot of interesting documents.) He very well could have been Caiaphas. Or perhaps Caiaphas' servant or employee. HE constructed everything that supposedly happened after Jesus' resurrection. As he was writing years later no one could nay-say him. It would be a long and difficult exposition for me to describe in detail what happened. But basically stories of miracles, healings and preachings by various Joshuas got mixed up. This produced a Jesus who people began to quote. This then produced a bunch of people who came forth to say they had known him. And some may have known one or the other of the Joshuas who were basically "insurgents" who were fighting the Roman rule of Judea. Paul, whomever he really was, could travel freely since he was a Roman citizen. He began to establish "churches" all of which were not anything like the very lowly and poverty stricken first Christian enclaves in Judea. Those were basically "communes" where suffering outcasts and slaves took in monies from preaching and baptizing to share amongst themselves. These were the followers of John the Baptist and others. But they were also an apocalyptic cult, basically waiting around for the return of the Messiah. (We recall the original Messiah was Joshua of the old Testament, who was a warrior that led the people to the Promised Land after Moses died. Moses never got the title, because he led them around in the desert, but did not get them their salvation...Joshua did.) When the Romans began to dismantle and destroy the leadership of the Jews after they rebelled, destroying the Temple and evacuating Jerusalem of all Jews, the Jewish state dissolved, and the religion began to take on many different forms. Paul found this a good time to produce his own version and plant "churches" that were money making mills. You might say Paul was like the L. Ron Hubbard of his day...running from Roman taxation, but using his Roman Passport for the freedom to build a system of Jewish Like churches that picked up Greeks, Romans and pagan Middle Easterners along the way. He became the first "Papa" or Father of these churches, definitely against Jesus' known teachings. He usurped the Mythical Jesus of Judea and made him even more mythical, who could tie a lot of disparate groups together...which included the fragmented and badly run original Christian conclaves in Jerusalem which had managed to convince the Romans they were NOT Jews. I believe Paul usurped Peter's authority. He actually converted Peter to Pauline Christianity. This Peter may have actually known one of the original Jesus', however though he could repeat the parables and teachings, he did not understand any of it. What we have to remember is that the Zealots, (Jewish Insurgents), the Iscariots, ("Siccari" or Dagger wielders), and the Essenes (Jewish Separatists), were all Jewish radicals some of whom brought down the whole of the Jewish nation when they followed Josephus and others to their eventual doom at Masada. When we note that all of these types were among Jesus' entourage, we realize that we are talking about radical, even terrorist elements like Barabbas (Of the Father) who were secretive and clever hanging out together and trying to figure out how to beat the Romans. Thus you have a real mosh-pit of explosive political groups who, after Jesus or the three Jesus' perished, became a fragmented frighted and hunted group. They had to then change many of their affiliations or face Roman justice. The Saul character was helping the Romans ferret these people out. It could be that Peter and Paul were the same, but I doubt it, since one was an illiterate fisherman who formed the group into what we would now call "The Nazarites," who convinced the Romans they were not a threat so they could get the Temple priesthood (Saul and others) off their backs. Paul, whomever he was, was an extremely literate theologian who I think was escaping from the knowledge that Rome was about to come down hard on all of Judaism. As a true Roman Citizen he could not be treated like any old rebel from Judea.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by whisperindave
 


Thanks for this. I'm not sure why you think I believe the gospels are accurate historical accounts, because I don't. I believe they were butchered then pieced back together by the Romans, but not before adding in the things that would complete their deception.

You say that Peter was illiterate, why is that? He wrote his epistle, someone who is Illiterate cannot write. If he had someone else write it for him then how can you be so sure that Paul wrote his epistles?

I believe there were three "Jesus'" as well. They were a family, a mother, father, and son (the REAL trinity). Mary the mother, John (the Baptist) the father, and John the apostle/Jesus the son. Jesus' baptism by john was actually Mary giving birth to John the apostle.

Your mention of Iscariot's being Siccaris, or "dagger wielders" got me thinking of da Vinci's last supper, where Peter is "wielding" a dagger/knife behind his back. This points to Peter being the one who betrayed Jesus, not Judas in my opinion. And having Peter cut in half by Judas only reinforces my theory that he, Judas, and Paul are all the same person.
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Never mind, I found what you were referring to with Peter being illiterate. In that same verse they also say that John is illiterate, yet he went on to write his gospel and Revelation. That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Was Jesus Christ ever real? Did he actually exist in history?

..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Reply to Enoch..



One thing is for sure. We'll soon know. It will be interesting to watch. My gut feeling is that an East wind takes away the harvest. Mankind starves and Peter repents. The end then comes for the commerce system as the money fails as well. Babylon falls. Iran is the East Wind. 1000 years of peace follows as mankind recovers. The phoenix rises from the ashes.


It will be interesting indeed!!
Can't wait to watch it all unfold and see if you are close to being right. Babylon will fall, its a matter of when! As we go into the age of Aquarius the thousand years begins.

Either way.... I believe in "Thy will be done". Meaning, its done. We are living in times whereas we can watch events unfold in real time. What is real time? Sorry... random thought.


There is no worry as its already done... and as Jesus said, "Its finished".

Op, Im looking into the similarities although it would not surprise me one bit if they were one and the same.

I have enjoyed your research thus far!!


Even though I am not a Bible thumper, the Bible is a cool book in my opinion with many layers of perception.



edit on 12-2-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 


Your mention of Josephus got me thinking. I did some research and found that Josephus actually saved someone from being crucified, the only recording of someone ever surviving a crucifixion.


Josephus, Life, 75, p. 20 of Whiston’s Translation

... as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.


Jesus was crucified with two thieves, making three people in all. Jesus survived his crucifixion (resurrection) while the others died. Also, Joseph bar Mathias sounds a lot like a guy called Joseph of Arimathea doesn't it? He was the guy who took Jesus' dead body and laid it in the tomb.


The Gospel of Barnabas has the incident of Joseph, but, his name is Abarimathia not Arimathea.

Barnabas 217, 8.

... but by means of Nicodemus and Joseph of Abarimathia they obtained from the governor the body... to bury it.


Source

Joseph Bar Mathias/Joseph Abarimathia, maybe they're the same person? Obviously Josephus wasn't alive during the crucifixion, so maybe Josephus put a hidden meaning into his works as well?




edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Another thing to note:


“He descended into the cave. So, for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his secret was revealed by a woman who had been with them. The death of J. was found to be a fiction, it became known that he was alive.”
This is a description of a resurrection after three days in a cave. No, J. is not Jesus, but Josephus. This is from the account of the fall of Jotapata where Josephus hides in a cave for three days before he was found out by a captured woman who knew of their hiding place. He arose from the cave. After a short time he ascended to the right hand of the Father, Vespasian, the Emperor. Josephus went on to live in the mansion of his Lord.
The Texts

But, finding every spot guarded on his account and no means of eluding detection, he descended again into the cave. So, for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his secret was betrayed by a woman who had been with them. [War 3. 8. 1.]
But when time revealed the truth and all that had really happened at Jotapata, when the death of Josephus was found to be a fiction, it became known that he was alive and in Roman hands... the demonstrations of wrath at his still being alive were as loud as the former expressions of affection when he was believed to be dead.” [War 3. 9. 6.]


So Josephus is recorded to have hid in a cave for three days while everyone thought he was dead. Jesus was in his tomb for three days before being resurrected!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Just because it's in the bible does NOT make it true! I could sit down and rewrite the bible in a completely different way if I wanted, all it would take is time, something they had plenty of 2,000 years ago.

You believe the bible is hermetically sealed correct? Let's take a look at the origins of that term.


The word hermetic comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, via the vocabulary of alchemy. The alchemists invented a process for making a glass tube airtight, which was used in distillation. The process used a secret seal whose invention was attributed to the legendary patron of alchemy, Hermes Trismegistos.


Wiki

So It derives from the Greek god Hermes. Let's take a look at who Hermes is.


He was protector and patron of travelers, herdsmen, thieves,[2] orators and wit, literature and poets, athletics and sports, invention and trade.[3] In some myths he is a trickster, and outwits other gods for his own satisfaction or the sake of humankind.


Wiki

So your "hermetical seal" is based on Hermes, the god of THIEVES, ORATORS, WIT, AND POETRY. So basically you're basing your entire assumption around a god that protected thieves and poets who is known as a trickster. The bible is a pretty piece of poetry isn't it? And it has tricked you pretty well.

Paul is called Hermes at one point, which points to him being a thief and an orator of wit and trickery.

You're basing your entire argument around the ASSUMPTION that the bible is hermetically sealed. What an ignorant stand-point you have.


Acts 14:12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

Hermes was based on Enoch. The original scribe to God was then counterfeited by the others. And yes, there were many who tried to mirror the truth and trick people. This is the purpose of the method the scribes used to seal truth in symbol. It was also the way nations communicated with each other after the Babel confusion. There were sets of universal symbols that were still understood by the various nations, working around the languages that were split. The only trick here is to keep the information out of the minds of the wrong people. Much of what was passed in symbol was done this way to keep it from those who would abuse the information. This is still true today. The Church of Rome is one of the worst offenders. Indulgences are a good example. This does not change the core truth at the heart of the symbols. The Bible is a written version of the symbols and the mathematics involved with creation. You see a history book and stories that make no sense. Others see beyond the words into the underlying story told by the symbols. This is the trick of sorts. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. The same is true for the truth behind the symbols. When the mind awakens by a path of virtue, the symbols open like flowers to the one paying attention.


edit on 12-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Oh, so since the Vatican tried to avoid it last time means they can't be blamed for choosing peter this time. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. Their past decisions have no bearing on what they do in the here and now. If they elect Peter as the next Pope, who is known as Peter the Roman in his hometown, then they are INTENTIONALLY fulfilling the "prophecy". There is no other reason for them to elect Peter, AT ALL. What don't you understand about that?

Or is it all "god's will" as you put it? LOL So even if all the cardinals didn't want to vote for Peter, they would still be forced to do it? Come on! Use your head dude!
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


You seem to be under the impression I am defending the RCC church. Nothing is further from the truth. They are corrupt through and through. The Catholic faithful are not corrupt necessarily. The leadership has always been corrupt.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


What are you trying to say here? The fact is Hermes was a god who protected thieves and poets, you're not looking past that are you?

Why would Luke associate Paul with that kind of god? Take a guess.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Oh, so since the Vatican tried to avoid it last time means they can't be blamed for choosing peter this time. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. Their past decisions have no bearing on what they do in the here and now. If they elect Peter as the next Pope, who is known as Peter the Roman in his hometown, then they are INTENTIONALLY fulfilling the "prophecy". There is no other reason for them to elect Peter, AT ALL. What don't you understand about that?

Or is it all "god's will" as you put it? LOL So even if all the cardinals didn't want to vote for Peter, they would still be forced to do it? Come on! Use your head dude!
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


I do not see the Pope prophecy as valid by itself. It seems to mirror what is listed in Revelation. As for God's will, we will see how the mirrored prophecy holds up next to the one given in scripture. So far, the scriptures have be perfect as usual.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So why are you standing by the prophecy as if it's going to be fulfilled whether the cardinals like it or not? You imply that if Peter is elected, that means the prophecy was fulfilled. I agree, except for one small thing, it will be self-fulfilled.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So if Peter is elected, that means god's will has been completed? Do you think it's at all possible that they are fully intending to fulfill the prophecy?

Also, Peter the Roman wasn't part of Malachy's list originally, it was added in at a later date.
edit on 12-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Wow, how do I answer this with so many .... holes in the argument. However, since you're questioning the worth of the Bible, I'm not sure if its worth pointing them out and rebutting with scripture and history. Hmm.
edit on 12-2-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


What are you trying to say here? The fact is Hermes was a god who protected thieves and poets, you're not looking past that are you?

Why would Luke associate Paul with that kind of god? Take a guess.



The people associated Paul with Hermes as one who addresses the people on behalf of God. The people were noting that Paul was making himself the scribe of God. Hermes is a Greek version of Enoch. This is what the Greeks did. They took the legends and Hellenized them. Hermes is a picture of Thoth from Egypt. Thoth and Hermes are both archetypes of Enoch, the most revered figure of the preflood timeline. Enoch's documents survived the flood and were present in Alexandria and throughout the trade routes. Enoch was a much loved figure.

After the flood, Nimrod revived the Mystery School and Enoch was then named by each language that was split at the time of Babel. Each language carried a different name for Enoch, but the symbol for Enoch was locked in stone as the various versions of the scribe to God. The Greeks had Hermes and the Egyptians had Thoth. All the same person.

The pun was to call Paul Hermes because he acted on behalf of God in his writing and speaking. Did you read the verse from Acts I quoted?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Please point them out! Please! The faster you do, the faster I can maybe fill them.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Where did you hear that Hermes is actually Enoch?

He was a messenger of the gods, but he was also the protector of thieves and poets. You're ignoring that fact. Why not call him Enoch instead of Hermes? That would have made more sense since the OT and the prophets were huge in those days.

Yes I read the verse, that is the one that I was referring to to start with.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So why are you standing by the prophecy as if it's going to be fulfilled whether the cardinals like it or not? You imply that if Peter is elected, that means the prophecy was fulfilled. I agree, except for one small thing, it will be self-fulfilled.


Here is a word that was fulfilled. Do you think that mankind fulfilled this simply because it was written? The answer is no. We just now, in the last few years, realized what it all meant. I believe scripture because of many examples such as this:

The Return of Israel to the land and the end of captivity: From a Thread I did last year.


Isaiah 11:11
In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

Here is God's judgment predicted ahead for us to clearly read.

The Prophecy ... Ezekiel 4:4-6

"Then God said to Ezekiel,
'Now lie on your left side for 390 days
to show Israel will be punished for 390 years
by captivity and doom.
Each day you lie there represents
a year of punishment ahead for Israel.
Afterwards, turn over and lay on your right side
for 40 days, to signify the years of Judah's punishment.
Each day will represent one year . . .'"
(Ezekiel 4:4-6)

390 days Judgment against the 10 northern tribes 'Israel'
+ 40 days Judgment against the 2 southern tribes 'Judah'
= 430 years Judgment against the nation of Israel

Fulfillment

430 years of judgment determined against nation Israel
- 70 years fulfilled during the Babylonian captivity
= 360 years remaining in judgment against the nation of Israel

Where are the 360 years?

"And after all this, if you do not obey Me,
then I (God) will punish you seven times more for your sins."
(Leviticus 26:18)

"Then, if you walk contrary to Me,
and are not willing to obey Me,
I (God) will bring on you seven times more plagues,
according to your sins."
(Leviticus 26:21)

"And after all this,
if you do not obey Me,
but walk contrary to Me,
then I (God) also will walk contrary to you in fury;
and I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins.:
(Leviticus 26:27-28)

"I (God) will scatter you among the nations
and draw a sword after you;
your Land shall be desolate
and your cities waste."
(Leviticus 26:33)

This is a factor of 7 (7X)

360 Remaining years of judgment
x 7 The prophetic '7X' factor
= 2,520 Years of judgment remained against nation Israel

360 day years for prophecies, then add the appropriate 'leap months' to the schedule. So, the easiest way to unravel this prophecy is to first convert this prophecy into days ...

2,520 years
x 360 days
= 907,200 days of judgment remained against nation Israel after the Babylonian captivity

907,200 days ÷ 365.25 days = 2,483.78 years of God's judgment remained


Now have another look.

606 B.C Israel taken into Babylonian captivity
- 70 Years for 70 years
= 536 B.C. End of first 70 years of judgment
+ 2483 Years Now add the 2,483 years remaining in this judgment
+ 1 Year Add 1 year because there is no "0" B.C. or A.D.
= 1948 AD! End of judgment against nation Israel


If God can do this, then he can accomplish Revelation 18 as well. I simply note that the Pope prophecy is connected. The OP is founded on the scriptures that back the events up. We are currently witnessing fulfillment of prophecy that leads to the events of the "Day of the Lord." It is obvious we are the last generation for many reasons.

Here are the reasons: How many witnesses can we find?




edit on 12-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join