William & Kate are the TWO WITNESSES and Prince George THE CHRIST RETURNED.

reply to post by Olivet


You are high as hell

reply to post by Olivet


Such a claim would ignore that the Bible states that Jesus will come as He left, not as a baby, this time around. He won't be ANY child.

No no you got it all wrong, Englanders aren't actually Jesus, they just think they are! I'm jk just had to take a jab at my buddies in the UK.

reply to post by Olivet

Some accept / admit the facts. Some don't.

What facts???

There are only YOUR opinions and delusions about certain bible verses that ignore the entire rest of what the bible says if it is contrary to what you are trying to push here.

Putting down every detractor you have in this thread must keep you pretty busy I guess, otherwise a rational person would seem to have realized that.

What is wrong with a picture that helps people to better understand what / who is the Red Dragon with the seven heads / diadems and the ten horns? Has this addition put your disinfo in jeopardy?

When I said it was now complete in reference to you adding your trademark pictures with writing all over them, I meant the final piece of crazy was fit into the puzzle of yours.

That's all.

I have not spread any disinfo BTW. I have mentioned your previous "predictions / declarations" that have never come to pass, and the hoaxes in your past ( it is easy to find all of that since you gave us your real name in the last thread and in your signature).

But no disinfo from me.

Remember I am not the one saying that newborn Prince George is Jesus returned.

You are.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Olivet

 

Such a claim would ignore that the Bible states that Jesus will come as He left, not as a baby, this time around. He won't be ANY child.

Such a claim doesn't ignore what the Bible states about the Return of Christ as he left. THIS IS YOU WHO IGNORED THE SECOND PART OF THE OP IN THE FIRST PAGE WHERE I WROTE IN PLAIN SIGHT:

Acts 1:9-11

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

'IN THE SAME WAY' means 'WITH THE SAME MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION', aka an extradimensional spaceship!

The 'two men dressed in white' are two extraterrestrial Nordics, aka two Angels in the Bible. Going to God and His throne (Revelations) means the same thing. Hence William, Kate and George will go to Heavens (in an extradimensional spaceship) and will come back.

Now, please go back to the OP (the four parts) and tell me what contradicts the Bible in 'my' claim? You could tell me that it contradicts WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE SAYS, but not what the Bible says.

And after, I am said to use too much colored, bold, underlined letters. I wonder why some people still make this kind of statement, or false claim about the Bible contradictions, if they have read the so numerous 'highlighted' letters.

NOWHERE IT'S WRITTEN CHRIST COMES BACK AS A GROWN UP, NOWHERE!

ON THE CONTRARY, REVELATION 12 SAYS HE COMES BACK AS A CHILD.

YOU ARE BLAPHEMING AGAINST THE SCRIPTURES.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

It's slightly interesting that even when plain Scripture contradicts his wild assertions . . . rather than deal with the Scriptures rationally and reasonably . . . he just pontificates even more off the wall assertions ostensibly based on the Scriptures.

HOW ON EARTH he could FANTASIZE

Instead of boring everyone with you gibberish, could you tell us what precisely, in the Bible, contradicts my assertions? Show us you are not fantasizing yourself.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Olivet

 

Some accept / admit the facts. Some don't.

What facts???

There are only YOUR opinions and delusions about certain bible verses that ignore the entire rest of what the bible says if it is contrary to what you are trying to push here.

Putting down every detractor you have in this thread must keep you pretty busy I guess, otherwise a rational person would seem to have realized that.

What facts? The following ones like it's said in the last two parts of the OP:

THE DAY OF THE PRINCE GEORGE BIRTH WE SAW THAT JOHN'S VISION WAS TRUE:

1) The woman of the Apocalypse is a real woman (a woman clothed with the sun).

2) The birth is a real birth (she labored to give birth).

3) The pain of the birth is a real physical pain (She was with child and wailed aloud in pain).

4) The baby boy is a real baby boy (She gave birth to a son, a male child).

5) The God's Temple in Heaven is the real sky (God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple).

6) The violent thunderstorms are real violent thunderstorms (There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder,..,and a violent hailstorm).

7) The earthquake is a real earthquake (6.6 in China, the other country of the Dragon) (There were ..., an earthquake,...).

8) The moon at her feet is a real full moon (with the moon under her feet).

9) The stars swept to get them down to the earth is a real meteors shower called the PERSEIDS from July 17 to August 24 [link to en.wikipedia.org] observed for about 2,000 years entering the Earth atmosphere (its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth).

10) The twelve stars are the representation of the whole sky (12 zodiac signs / 12 constellations) from which EVERY part of the world was informed in the same time thanks to the world medias in front of the Hospital SAINT MARY door (Name of Jesus' mother). Kate was then crowned with the 12 stars. (and on her head a crown of twelve stars)

11) The ark of the Covenant of God is a real STAR OF DAVID in THE HEAVEN / SKY formed by the alignement of the planets, David to who He promised an eternal line of Kings.(the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple).

12) There were indeed SIX PAST KINGS GEORGE + ONE FUTURE KING GEORGE VII (actual Prince George of Cambridge) = SEVEN HEADS WITH A DIADEMS (a crown of jewelries) of the House of Hanover (the first king of which was GEORGE I) followed by the House of Windsor. The name George is related to the Dragon (St George defeating the dragon). That's why the RED DRAGON has SEVEN HEADS / SEVEN GEORGE.(it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems).

There were actually 3 MORE KINGS WITH A DIFFERENT NAME (WILLIAM IV, EDWARD VII, EDWARD VIII)) TO MAKE TEN HORNS (7 + 3 = 10 KINGS). THE ACTUAL UNICORN SYMBOL IS IN THE BRITISH ROYAL CREST.

THE TWO QUEENS VICTORIA AND ELIZABETH ARE NOT COUNTED FOR ONLY KINGS ARE IN THE GOD'S CONVENANT WITH KINGS DAVID.

13) The RED DRAGON is a real RED DRAGON for it's the flag symbol of the Wales (all the previous kings of UK were Princes of Wales first, hence the RED Dragon represents the Establishment which 'devours' their members) for which Charles, who visited Kate and George, is Prince of. (it was a huge red dragon...Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth).

So, nothing is contradicting the Bible. On the contrary, it strengthens the Bible.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

What is wrong with a picture that helps people to better understand what / who is the Red Dragon with the seven heads / diadems and the ten horns? Has this addition put your disinfo in jeopardy?

When I said it was now complete in reference to you adding your trademark pictures with writing all over them, I meant the final piece of crazy was fit into the puzzle of yours.

That's all.

Why it is crazy if the red dragon really has metaphorically seven heads, seven diadems and ten horns like I showed it to have? Could you do better than me with any kind of explanatory means like I used?

As long as you are unable to do better, you're just a crazy self-important debunker without meat to feed people with your supposed intelligence. One could criticize somebody else if one has something to show that could do better, sketch or anything relevant. Otherwise, you're just a foolish sad nut. So, you criticize with your empty bag of arguments.

I have not spread any disinfo BTW. I have mentioned your previous "predictions / declarations" that have never come to pass, and the hoaxes in your past ( it is easy to find all of that since you gave us your real name in the last thread and in your signature).

But no disinfo from me.

Remember I am not the one saying that newborn Prince George is Jesus returned.

You are.

edit on 8/25/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

The disinformation consists in presenting a partial truth, changing it into a lie that people believe to be the truth. There were NO hoaxes at all from me. There were CONDITIONAL predictions from me. Nothing else. So you are a disinfo agent, nothing else, as far as you refuse to read my replies to the critics and to understand them.

That's why I created a blog to answer to the public wanting to hear the truth instead of liars like all the disinfo agents. Some of them (taken as a reference) are so informed, that they told everyone that my real name was Jean Ederman when it was a pseudo. You was one of the parrots who think they are smart because they speak. What is sad is that you believe you are right when you are just completly wrong.

I am the one saying that newborn Prince George WILL BE Christ returned, but IS the child of the woman of the apocalypse. SO WHAT? Where is the problem when you read all the arguments I presented? What's the link with the previous moves I did before, for which I created the blog (in my signature to get access to it)? There is no disinfo, there is a new fresh way to decipher the Scriptures.

Do you think that the world progresses with old mindsets?

Originally posted by th3dudeabides
reply to post by Olivet

 

You are high as hell

You are low as Hell.

Does your post add anything to this thread?

reply to post by honested3


What your post has anything to do with the thread?

reply to post by Olivet


Typo mistake:

read BLASPHEMING, instead of blapheming.

reply to post by BO XIAN


As a psychologist, I would be REALLY worried about your mental disorder.

You keep saying how crazy are my claims about the new way to interpret the Bible, when, facing rational questions, you escape in your boring explanations about why you wouldn't answer to my simple questions. Who is crazy?

The one who proves his claims (see the four parts of the OP) and adds explanations that strengthen them, or the one unable to reply in the simpliest way to simple questions, prefering excuses and ad hominem attacks to avoid those questions?

Do you think that the readers are THAT idiot? Sure, there are many idiots to listen and believe you. But all those with a sufficient IQ level, not drowned in the fanatical beliefs, perfectly see your tactics.

You're the crazy and brainwashed one, unable to properly use your brain and your impartial reflection.

reply to post by Olivet


Christ told his disciples to go forth and be fishers of men.
They have you suitably fished in.
Your opinion is your, you may speak it as you wish.
I am entitled to mine, your definition of troll is laughable.

reply to post by Olivet

I am the one saying that newborn Prince George WILL BE Christ returned, but IS the child of the woman of the apocalypse.

Yes we know. You have been saying that in colored writing over and over. Still doesn't make it true.

So you are a disinfo agent, nothing else, as far as you refuse to read my replies to the critics and to understand them.

I have been reading your replies to your many critics. You try to validate your delusions with your (same) delusions. That doesn't work very well in actually proving anything.
Calling someone a disinfo agent is the standard name calling technique used by those that have no real proof or valid arguments.

One could criticize somebody else if one has something to show that could do better, sketch or anything relevant. Otherwise, you're just a foolish sad nut.

Why would I even want to "sketch" out your ideas in a pictorially descriptive way when I don't believe a word of it in the first place?

SO WHAT? Where is the problem when you read all the arguments I presented? What's the link with the previous moves I did before, for which I created the blog (in my signature to get access to it)?

You are saying your word is more valid than your hundreds of written critics. And you keep promoting your blog (bad form).

Do you think that the world progresses with old mindsets?

No.

I also don't think it progresses by deluding ourselves in fantasies and dreams either.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Well put.

I'm sure more of the same, typical convoluted tortured blather of his will ensue in response.

Thanks much for your yeoman's work of posting the track record.

Some people are slow learners even from their own horrific errors.

I've been there and done that in different areas of my life over the decades.

Thankfully, never to anything approaching this degree--I hope. LOL.

There was a study once of JW's and how they handled their many missed predictions of Christ's return on specific dates. They merely rationalized it away as best they could and went on as though nothing amiss had happened.

It seems to me that in this case, the bloke must have some extremely rare ideation habits and mechanisms

and/or

be very heavy duty brainwashed by black ops types.

I don't have any better explanation.

It is soooooooooooo extremely out there . . . probably even 4 standard deviations from the norm.

Someone reminded us upthread about the Scripture where in the NT the angels told the disciples watching Christ ascend in the clouds that He would RETURN IN LIKE MANNER.

One can't get any plainer than that.

[color=6699FF]there's no possible way that THAT "like manner" could be construed as Kate and Will's little George. NO POSSIBLE WAY.

New International Version
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

New Living Translation
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!"

Most earnest and authentic Christians when realizing that they'd 100% contradicted the Bible--particularly THAT MUCH--in one of their fanciful postulations would realize it at that point, apologize and try and correct their off-the-wall claims.

However, I have no doubt that the vain blathering rationalizations will spew forth attempting to do just continue to "prove" that there is a way to make 2+2=11; black=white; up=down; etc. He does seem to be VERY GOOD at THAT!

Maybe he'll claim that Kate gave birth while descending atop a UFO instead of in the hospital.

LOLOLOLOL.

sigh.

I'm almost to the point where I think ignoring the thread would be the most charitable thing toward him as well as toward his readers. It might then die a merciful death.

.

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by Olivet

 

Christ told his disciples to go forth and be fishers of men.
They have you suitably fished in.
Your opinion is your, you may speak it as you wish.
I am entitled to mine, your definition of troll is laughable.

edit on 25-8-2013 by Cynic because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2013 by Cynic because: (no reason given)

My opinions are based on facts. And yours are based on...?

What's a troll?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The reason why I told you you were the troll here was because you wrote:

It happens to be ludicrous and without substance in reality.
Enjoy your wrongness, you can bible thump but not to me.

As long as you say it's my opinion, I reply that my opinion is based on facts. But you went further and used the words ludicrous and without substance when it was the opposite, and wrongness.

There is a substance in the reality in my claim: a baby boy was born from a woman under the strict circumstances described by John's visions. You can discuss about this substance, you can tell us why you don't agree with the interpretation of some of the metaphorical points, but you cannot say that there is no substance when it's false.

reply to post by Olivet


Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Baby, Kate, blah, blah blah.
Don't care.

reply to post by Olivet


You talk about how bad ad hominem attacks are while in the same breath you call other posters idiots, mentally challenged, unable to read, disinfo agents, weak, of low IQ, crazy, fanatical, brainwashed, etc., etc., etc.

reply to post by Olivet

My opinions are based on facts.

The only facts you seem to really have captured is that there is a bible with many chapters and verses, and that Kate had a baby boy.

The rest is all you.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Olivet

 

You talk about how bad ad hominem attacks are wile in the same breath you call other posters idiots, mentally challenged, unable to read, disinfo agents, weak, of low IQ, crazy, fanatical, brainwashed, etc., etc., etc.

That fact alone should indicate some seriously faulty thinking, reality testing.

The rest of us have somewhat charitably tried to wake him up to the . . . uhhhh brown goooey stuff he seems to keep smearing all over his face and reputation . . . but he won't have any accurate feedback.

Instead, it's the ad hominem assaultiveness.

When he can't remotely approach a rational argument or presentation . . . it's quickly kill the messengers on the other side as a strategy.

What a classic fail of his argument.