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.
Originally posted by passingthought
The Numerologists like simple factoids to play with. Which, is taken to the stage to let you know which CD's to purchase if that is you listening pleasure.
It might as well read +$6.66 plus tax, in my opinion.
Originally posted by passingthought
Traditional Theolegists point to the fact that Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, and other assorted Demons are the true evil stated within the text that makes up Modern Day Christian Biblical texts.
Originally posted by bekod
i wonder if not knowing Hebrew is a no no? If you can not read the true word then ? but then all things will be known when he comes.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The Bible speaks of this mark associated with the number of the beast being given on the wrist or forehead. This would be a mark that would contain all your information and allow you to pa5rticipate in the economy.
Back in the 70's in church we saw a documentary about this info and it was said there was an English company who had designed AND BUILT this exact system
Originally posted by DISRAELI
God is not going to make you his enemy on account of something which has been effectively forced upon you.
I think that point should help to control our understanding of what the "mark" might be.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
And I stand by my other point, that Jesus canot be a false imitator of himself.
"10" has been described as the number of completeness or perfection. [mistyped in the original as "completeness OF perfection"] In my mind, the number "10" is pointing us towards "the full extent of the world". The implication is that the "ten kings" are ruling the world between them, and that the Beast is dominating the world with their assistance.
LINE 1; False imitators will have the name Jesus...
LINE 2; So a false imitator can be Jesus...
LINE 3; Which means that Jesus can be a false imitator, because he says...
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by The Riley Family
Nobody can quarrel with LINE 1. It is part of the definition of an antichrist that he will claim the identity of Jesus and therefore claim his names.
I have told you that Jesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
That statement is necessarily true, because of the definition of the word "imitator".
Part of the definition of an imitator is that an imitator is NOT the original.
Therefore it follows, conversly, that the original CANNOT be an imitator.
Therefore NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, can be a false imitator of itself.
Therefore the RealJesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
If you try to maintain that anything can be a false imitator of itself, you are misusing the language and coming to an irrational conclusion..
If you are trying to turn the minds of people against the Jesus speaking in the New Testament and taught by the church, what does that say about the origin of your teaching?
Originally posted by The Riley Family
Exactly the point. The Jesus of today with all of the idolatry, and the fraudulent bible teachings, as well as the false doctrines is not the original by any means.
So you are saying all of the "churches" teach the true Christ? Including Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Bahai, Islam, Catholicism, Baptist, Born Agains, etc... etc... etc... and all their doctrines and teachings are of the true Christ?
Calling youself or others a Christian is not what saves you or any one else. As a metter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the bible that states anyone has to even become a Christian to be saved... It was a name meant as offense and ridicule.
So Yes, Jesus is the antichrist. ("so" is not fraudulent but Jesus is)
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Originally posted by The Riley Family
Exactly the point. The Jesus of today with all of the idolatry, and the fraudulent bible teachings, as well as the false doctrines is not the original by any means.
So you are saying that everything found in the Bible about Jesus is false?
Obviously you can have no Biblical evidence for that, and Biblical evidence is what matters for Christian teaching.
So you are saying all of the "churches" teach the true Christ? Including Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Bahai, Islam, Catholicism, Baptist, Born Agains, etc... etc... etc... and all their doctrines and teachings are of the true Christ?
What on earth gives you the idea that I would count Islam, Bahai, the Mormons, as churches? Where have you seen me say that? When have you heard any Christian say it, for that matter? "Deliberately exaggerating the views of the other party to make them sound more absurd"- I think there's a technical name for that particular rhetorical device, but I can't remember it at the moment.
My reference point is the Christ found in the New Testament. If a church is teaching Christ out of the New Testament, that's good enough for me.
Calling youself or others a Christian is not what saves you or any one else. As a metter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the bible that states anyone has to even become a Christian to be saved... It was a name meant as offense and ridicule.
Again, I have never suggested that "calling yourself a Christian" was the way to get saved, You seem to be arguing with somebody else. It is the fact of the relation with Christ that matters, not the exact name being used. Paul describes the fact in terms like "belonging to Christ, being in Christ", and so on.
On the suggestion that the name was originally meant offensively, why should that matter? Are you not aware of the many occasions in history when people have deliberately adopted a nickname that was originally meant insultingly? Psychologically, it's a way of expressing defiance. Have you never heard of the British soldiers who proudly called themselves "The Old Contemptibles"? Have you never heard of the "Beggars" who led the Dutch revolt? So you're trying to discredit the name "Christian" as well as the name "Jesus"? Water off a duck's back.
So Yes, Jesus is the antichrist. ("so" is not fraudulent but Jesus is)
OK, I note the fact that you're hostile to Jesus. Other Christians will also take note, and know how to categorise you.
Originally posted by The Riley Family
The false doctrines and false teachings of Christianity are false, don't even need be selective of which ones, they can't even agree on teachings, doctrines, or bible translations. History and the bible is evidence of all of this.
Don't you believe the church is wherever two or more who believe in Jesus gather together. However we do understand that most Christians consider their church building to be the "house of God", which of course it isn't.
My reference point is the Christ found in the New Testament. If a church is teaching Christ out of the New Testament, that's good enough for me.
"So", you are also a Mormon then.
To be a Christian also means you bear the responsibility for all of Christianity and its anti-christ behavior.
Your ancestors are guilty of many atrocities including to many tribes in the US in the name of your God. Our God on the other hand said treat others as you want to be treated. "So", are you gonna at least pay reparations and give the land back?
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Originally posted by Student X
Yes, I think its time for humanity to reject any exegesis that is not inclusive for all humanity.
This is very ironic. I have a recent thread on the subject of "the Beast", in which the central topic is this very same "worship of humanity", which. I think, you would want to advocate. I treat it as part of the very essence of the rule of "the Beast".
The Beast- great ruler and antichrist
[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]
Originally posted by Student X
All religions, including Christianity, are one. The differences are illusion and vanity, as Rumi said.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Student X
My comment was originally based on your remark that, to Christians, your suggestion might look like "the one-world religion of the antichrist".
OK, I accept that what you're advocating is not the same thing as the "humanity worship" being discussed in this OP.
But I think it might fit very well into my conception of a future "one-world religion" for a different reason.
In my mind, the "exclusive" aspect of Biblical religion, the "You shall have no other gods but me", is actually absolutely central to its nature. And for that reason, I would see any kind of syncretism as hostile to its nature- "life-threatening", in fact. I don't see that the "all religions are the same underneath approach" can be compatible with the Christian one. So any attempt to bring them under the same umbrella would certainly meet with resistance from people like me- and then you might get precisely the situation described at the end of ch13.