Meanings behind the MOB

Probably just talking to myself at this point but I think I'm onto something lmao

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

All roads lead to Rome... it isn't a new one, even though it always feels like it is one, but that might be cause of the shock value.

The fourth an first beast, is the Roman State and its might, with it many heads, representing the different Rulers. Even John points out that Nero was one of its heads and was the one that suffered a mortal wound, but it didn't stop the rise an fall of the later Caesars.

The Second Beast might as well be a voice or a messenger of sorts, all the while the second beast just fades away somewhat. Maybe it even went trans, like the Cult of Ishtar, or how a woman just comes out nowhere. Watching over many waters( which is people, or just call Mob with pitchforks, torches, and Tomatoes which is Democratic) and doesn't appear to be the woman that is first mentioned in the Revelations.

I do think the Second beast is Paul the Apostle, who isn't what most think or say he is. That a bit of it own nutty theory of its own though, but if your interested, look up Apollonius of Tyana and Paul of Tarsus. They are one an the same.

Anyways, it all leads to the making of the Vatican, the Little Horn being the Pope, lots statues of Mary(a woman), like with what your pointing out in your thread.

originally posted by: TomCollin
a reply to: Raggedyman

Actually Jesus was a Hebrew / Israelite, and taught the law.

Matthew 5:17-18

Matthew 5:17 New American Standard Bible
17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

You might need to study that a little more in dept
Jesus has brought His followers into a new covenant, not the Mosaic covenant
If Jesus didn’t bring in a new covenant we would still be Jews

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

There great questions Jimmy Neutron, seem sincere and happy to point you in the direction of my opinion
However you strike me as a JW or SDA, what is your theology?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

There great questions Jimmy Neutron, seem sincere and happy to point you in the direction of my opinion
However you strike me as a JW or SDA, what is your theology?

I was born Roman Catholic, never cared much, born-again-christian, still never cared, 15 years later of reading and research into history, science ect, I started looking at the bible (probably had to do with the rough times) and started noticing patterns I could relate to the years of history I would research as a hobby.

What really set me off on my journey of questions is when I was searching "Do Christians have any arguments against scientists?" Then I found Apologia Studios on Youtube and started noticing, with a SLIGHT bit of faith, you can begin to draw a bigger picture and understand the arguments presented by the theologian.

One of the biggest people to convince me that God exists was when Apologia Studios made this argument. You have a book with words in it. Those words got there somehow, they didn't magically appear. Intelligent design REQUIRES an intelligent creator. From a scientific standpoint, you can say, well look at nature. But that's where the faith comes in. You have to have faith that there was a intelligent creator that originally designed that intelligent design.

Anyway, with all this said, I was very privy to Roman history growing up and started drawing comparisons to the gospels and history.

Sorry, I knew where I mentioned that I came to the conclusion Jesus was the anti-christ, that might sound a little...Jewish to say the least. Plus my great grandfather fought in WW1 for the Germans, not sure how far that goes haha. You should see the memorabilia I have....

I'm not saying Jewish theology is entirely right or wrong, but I would absolutely love to sit down with a Rabbi and pick their brain so I can make my own conclusion... I'm on a boat and the world is my sea of information. Learning something new and retaining information is more wholesome and fulfilling to me than sex.

But again, I'm just drawing lines between the gospels and history, maybe I am over stretching and over thinking it.

originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

All roads lead to Rome... it isn't a new one, even though it always feels like it is one, but that might be cause of the shock value.

The fourth an first beast, is the Roman State and its might, with it many heads, representing the different Rulers. Even John points out that Nero was one of its heads and was the one that suffered a mortal wound, but it didn't stop the rise an fall of the later Caesars.

The Second Beast might as well be a voice or a messenger of sorts, all the while the second beast just fades away somewhat. Maybe it even went trans, like the Cult of Ishtar, or how a woman just comes out nowhere. Watching over many waters( which is people, or just call Mob with pitchforks, torches, and Tomatoes which is Democratic) and doesn't appear to be the woman that is first mentioned in the Revelations.

I do think the Second beast is Paul the Apostle, who isn't what most think or say he is. That a bit of it own nutty theory of its own though, but if your interested, look up Apollonius of Tyana and Paul of Tarsus. They are one an the same.

Anyways, it all leads to the making of the Vatican, the Little Horn being the Pope, lots statues of Mary(a woman), like with what your pointing out in your thread.

I'm going to break this down after I settle down and look into this all. Thank you for the hit of dope (researching)! lmao

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Well there were no Nazis in ww1, no final solution and the Jews helped finance the German effort, so there is that.
Your comprehension of christianity is very simplistic, very basic
Jesus was a Jew, He offered humanity a new covenant if they so chose, in Him, not the sabath or any law. The NT is clear
The sabbath is over, Jesus brought in one new law for His followers, love.
www.letusreason.org...

You are confusing Judaism with christianity, two very different beliefs, one is a religion, an effort to God, the other a faith, God came to man

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Well there were no Nazis in ww1, no final solution and the Jews helped finance the German effort, so there is that.
Your comprehension of christianity is very simplistic, very basic
Jesus was a Jew, He offered humanity a new covenant if they so chose, in Him, not the sabath or any law. The NT is clear
The sabbath is over, Jesus brought in one new law for His followers, love.
www.letusreason.org...

You are confusing Judaism with christianity, two very different beliefs, one is a religion, an effort to God, the other a faith, God came to man

So the Sabbath is the covenant made with Moses and the Jews where-as Jesus is the covenant made with the new order?

This is starting to remind me of a topic I used to research about the "ages of time", where Moses represented the age of the Ram/Aries, which is signified by Moses iconic Shofar, a rams horn which was used to make music in the time of Moses. Furthermore where Jesus is represented by the fish/Pisces.

Even as far as with a future age of Aquarius, set up and prophesied in the following verse:

Luke 22:10
“A man will meet you carrying an earthen pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he goes in”

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Covenant theology vs dispensationalism, a very interesting discussion, though not a great point of contention.

As for your “ages of time” the man we are called to follow is bread and wine, flesh and blood metaphorically.
Not sure there is a parallel between star signs and biblical timelines/covenants

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Covenant theology vs dispensationalism, a very interesting discussion, though not a great point of contention.

As for your “ages of time” the man we are called to follow is bread and wine, flesh and blood metaphorically.
Not sure there is a parallel between star signs and biblical timelines/covenants

Interesting indeed, never heard those terms before, did a quick research on it:
www.youtube.com...

So let me ask you, if someone were to believe that Jesus was not Messiah but a false prophet, perhaps made by Jews, but that Israel has continued its false worship of Gods today, same as the original reason God banished them beyond Babylon in the first place, would that make the person neither a dispensationalist or covenantalist? I talked about my research in another post of mine regarding the current Israeli state and Jewish religion being based around the Talmud rather than the Torah and its relations to the worship of Moloch.

In the sense, I guess that would make the person a dispensationalist, in that Israel, whether good or bad, has a place in the biblical timeline of today..?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

If Jesus isn’t the Messiah then the discussion is mute
The Mosaic covenant still stands for Jews
Gentiles are not in the loop, never have been

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

We may remember that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day felt they had God’s favor because they scrupulously paid tithes, made the required sacrifices and abstained from secular work on sabbath days. They were critical of any who did not measure up to their idea of what obeying the Law meant. But Jesus told them: “If you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.’” True, being under the Mosaic law they were required to observe those things mentioned, but not to the point of disregarding “the weightier matters of the Law,” including mercy.​—Matt. 9:1-13; 12:1-7; 23:23.

Are Christians under obligation to keep a weekly sabbath day?

Ex. 31:16, 17: “The sons of Israel must keep the sabbath, so as to carry out the sabbath during their generations. It is a covenant to time indefinite [“a perpetual covenant,” RS]. Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite.” (Notice that sabbath observance was a sign between Jehovah and Israel; this would not be the case if everyone else were also obligated to keep the Sabbath. The Hebrew word rendered “perpetual” in RS is ‛oh·lamʹ, which basically means a period of time that, from the standpoint of the present, is indefinite or hidden from sight but of long duration. That can mean forever, but not necessarily so. At Numbers 25:13 the same Hebrew word is applied to the priesthood, which later ended, according to Hebrews 7:12.)

Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.” (Sabbath keeping was a part of that Law. God used Christ to bring that Law to its end. Our having a righteous standing with God depends on faith in Christ, not on keeping a weekly sabbath.) (Also Galatians 4:9-11; Ephesians 2:13-16)

Col. 2:13-16: “[God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us . . . Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath.” (If a person was under the Mosaic Law and was judged guilty of profaning the Sabbath, he was to be stoned to death by the whole congregation, according to Exodus 31:14 and Numbers 15:32-35. Many who argue for sabbath keeping have reason to be glad that we are not under that Law. As shown in the scripture here quoted, an approved standing with God no longer requires observance of the sabbath requirement given to Israel.)

Was the requirement of sabbath keeping given to Adam and thus made binding on all of his offspring?

Jehovah God proceeded to rest as to his works of material, earthly creation after preparing the earth for human habitation. This is stated at Genesis 2:1-3. But nothing in the Bible record says that God directed Adam to keep the seventh day of each week as a sabbath.

Deut. 5:15: “You must remember that you [Israel] became a slave in the land of Egypt and Jehovah your God proceeded to bring you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. That is why Jehovah your God commanded you to carry on the sabbath day.” (Here Jehovah connects his giving of the sabbath law with Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt, not with events in Eden.)

Ex. 16:1, 23-29: “The entire assembly of the sons of Israel finally came to the wilderness of Sin . . . on the fifteenth day of the second month after their coming out of the land of Egypt. . . . [Moses] said to them: ‘It is what Jehovah has spoken. Tomorrow there will be a sabbath observance of a holy sabbath to Jehovah. . . . Six days you will pick [the manna] up, but on the seventh day is a sabbath. On it none will form.’ . . . Jehovah said to Moses: . . . ‘Mark the fact that Jehovah has given you the sabbath.’” (Prior to this, there had been a marking off of weeks of seven days each, but this is the first reference to a sabbath observance.)

Is the Mosaic Law divided into “ceremonial” and “moral” parts, and is the “moral law” (the Ten Commandments) binding on Christians?

Did Jesus refer to the Law in a manner that indicated division of it into two parts?

Matt. 5:17, 21, 23, 27, 31, 38: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” Now, notice what Jesus included in his further comments. “You heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder [Ex. 20:13; the Sixth Commandment]’ . . . If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar [Deut. 16:16, 17; no part of the Ten Commandments] . . . You heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery [Ex. 20:14; the Seventh Commandment].’ Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce [Deut. 24:1; no part of the Ten Commandments].’ You heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth [Ex. 21:23-25; no part of the Ten Commandments].’” (So, Jesus mixed together references to the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Law, making no distinction between them. Should we treat them differently?)

When Jesus was asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” did he isolate the Ten Commandments? Instead, he replied: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:35-40) If some cling to the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21), saying that they are binding on Christians but that the rest are not, are they not actually rejecting what Jesus said (quoting Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) as to which commandments are the greatest?

When referring to the passing away of the Mosaic Law, does the Bible directly say that the Ten Commandments were included in what came to an end?

Rom. 7:6, 7: “Now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast . . . What, then, shall we say? Is the Law sin? Never may that become so! Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law; and, for example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: ‘You must not covet.’” (Here, immediately after writing that Jewish Christians had been “discharged from the Law,” what example from the Law does Paul cite? The Tenth Commandment, thus showing that it was included in the Law from which they had been discharged.)

2 Cor. 3:7-11: “If the code which administers death and which was engraved in letters in stones came about in a glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory that was to be done away with, why should not the administering of the spirit be much more with glory? . . . For if that which was to be done away with was brought in with glory, much more would that which remains be with glory.” (Reference is made here to a code that was “engraved in letters in stones” and it is said that “the sons of Israel could not gaze intently at the face of Moses” on the occasion when it was delivered to them. What is this describing? Exodus 34:1, 28-30 shows that it is the giving of the Ten Commandments; these were the commandments engraved on stone. Obviously these are included in what the scripture here says “was to be done away with.”)

Does doing away with the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, imply the taking away of all moral restraint?

Not at all; many of the moral standards set out in the Ten Commandments were restated in the inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. (There was, however, no restating of the sabbath law.) But no matter how good a law is, as long as sinful inclinations dominate a person’s desires, there will be lawlessness. However, regarding the new covenant, which has replaced the Law covenant, Hebrews 8:10 states: “‘For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.’” How much more effective such laws are than those engraved on stone tablets!

Rom. 6:15-17: “Shall we commit a sin because we are not under law but under undeserved kindness? Never may that happen! Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves to anyone as slaves to obey him, you are slaves of him because you obey him, either of sin with death in view or of obedience with righteousness in view? But thanks to God that you were the slaves of sin but you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were handed over.” (See also Galatians 5:18-24.)

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
...
I'm not saying Jewish theology is entirely right or wrong, but I would absolutely love to sit down with a Rabbi and pick their brain so I can make my own conclusion... I'm on a boat and the world is my sea of information. Learning something new and retaining information is more wholesome and fulfilling to me than sex.

But again, I'm just drawing lines between the gospels and history, maybe I am over stretching and over thinking it.

Perhaps something else is going on (in relation to your remark at the end)?

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“... having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 3:5-7)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

...
How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Source: Philosophy (Reasoning From the Scriptures)