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

reply to post by Olivet


I'm here because this thread involves my bloody country and is predicated on an assumption that I find to be ludicrous.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


At least this is clear. You didn't think about the OP but are here just because of the title of the thread:

UK Royals + crazy claim!

That's enough for me. It should be crap. Don't care about the explanations. Happy not to think about the reasons the OP could give to me. It suffices to read the title to have my own opinion about this thread.

Most of the first reactions were like that. The average IQ level of the population is 100. There is a reason for this.

In another hand, as weird as it seems to be, the title reflects in a nutshell what it is about. I could have written these general questions:

Who are the Two Witnesses? Who is Christ?

But it would have been less interesting and far from the core of the subject: the UK Royals.

Finally, the controversy attracted much more people than expected. Instead of a crazy stuff, lost among hundreds of topics in this forum, it became a fascinating popular thread (+ 400 replies) in just a week or two, maintained in the top list.

I note that you just expressed an OPINION BASED ON WHAT YOU THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS.

This is NOT A DEMONSTRATION.

Science is made of many assumptions. But it often works. Sometimes, we don't really know why (remember I have written a book about Science), but the statistics, and the probabilities that go with them, are a very good mathematical instrument to predict results.

'My' claim is exactly the same. The probabilities to have such coincidences are so tiny that it's quite impossible it could be coincidences...just by chance. In other words, it means that John was right, and / or 'my' claim is right too.

The coming events will strengthen 'my' claim and the whole christian world (the whole world in fact) will be forced to revisit the Bible after this, and think about what will happen next with the ETs.

Again with this whole Antichrist deal...

Originally posted by kaitain
Again with this whole Antichrist deal...

Where did you see any antichrist deal in this thread? I am curious...

No words ...

reply to post by Timely


Off-topic to say the least.

Originally posted by EA006
reply to post by Olivet

 

A lot of coincidental things going on there. Interesting read.

Yes, indeed!

We enter the time window when we must be careful about the news from the young royals. Be prepared.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very Naughty Boy....Sorry, Just had to say it.

reply to post by Olivet


They probably all left after realizing how hopeless this thread was. Sure you have 400 replies but only 5 flags. Usually the good threads worth reading with that many replies tend to have quite a few more flags. To even suggest that the newborn royalty is anything but an overprivileged rich kid is lunacy. I don't even believe in Christianity and I know that Christ came from nothing. This makes sense too since it helps the poor and downtrodden relate to him. There is no way that the Christ returned would be some rich snotty brat daring to call itself a ruler of people due to the random chance of what family he was born into, because again this is unrelatable to the masses. Maybe you'll have some credence to your claim if upon the coming of age of this brat, he renounces his family name along with all his worldly possessions and truly follows in the way of Christ. Until then you are just making crazy claims backed by some mildly interesting coincidences.

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
He's not the Messiah, he's a very Naughty Boy....Sorry, Just had to say it.

Not yet. Did you read the thread? Have you understood the reasons of the title? What it's based on?

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Olivet

 

They probably all left after realizing how hopeless this thread was. Sure you have 400 replies but only 5 flags. Usually the good threads worth reading with that many replies tend to have quite a few more flags.

It's not surprising. The claim SEEMS so crazy when facing the BELIEFS and PREJUDICES that I didn't expect a lot of supporters. But the truth stays the truth, whatever your beliefs and prejudices are.

To even suggest that the newborn royalty is anything but an overprivileged rich kid is lunacy. I don't even believe in Christianity and I know that Christ came from nothing. This makes sense too since it helps the poor and downtrodden relate to him. There is no way that the Christ returned would be some rich snotty brat daring to call itself a ruler of people due to the random chance of what family he was born into, because again this is unrelatable to the masses.

Do you know God's will?

Maybe you'll have some credence to your claim if upon the coming of age of this brat, he renounces his family name along with all his worldly possessions and truly follows in the way of Christ. Until then you are just making crazy claims backed by some mildly interesting coincidences.

edit on 4-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

No, this is the parents (William & Kate) who will make the first move! Did you read this thread?

reply to post by Olivet


I find it impossible to know the will of something that I'm not even sure exists. Though one can look at just about any religious text in the world and come to the conclusion that I have. Here a link for you to enjoy.

www.unification.net...

All scriptures regard attachment to wealth and possessions as a
fetter to the religious life. Attachment promotes greed and avarice,
which draw the mind downward into the mire of self-centered desire.
Therefore the path to Transcendence requires renunciation of wealth and
the desire for its benefits.

Also I do enjoy learning history and notice that an alarming amount of prophets and saints tend to either be born into poverty or renounce their wealth to live in poverty. You say that William and Kate have to make their son renounce their position and wealth? That isn't something a prophet would allow. He would already have renounced his possessions. See I don't care how many coincidences and crap you can pull from the bible, this spoiled brat represents everything that religion opposes, therefore your whole argument falls apart at the beginning. If this child wanted to aspire to be Christ-like, he would have to willingly and without being told to do so renounce his wealth first. Until he does that I am calling BS on your whole position. I don't need to read your 22 pages of thread to come to this conclusion when I find the flaws in your argument from the very OP.

Originally posted by Olivet

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
He's not the Messiah, he's a very Naughty Boy....Sorry, Just had to say it.

Not yet. Did you read the thread? Have you understood the reasons of the title? What it's based on?

Yes i read the thread, i cant see a Messiah called "George."..... surely he should have a Name befitting of a Messiah...

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, George.

doesn't quite work for me.

Originally posted by thoughtfuldeliquent
Calling it right now, Kate and William's son is not the resurrection of christ. Willing to pay say, 3000000:1 odds if there's any takers.

edit on 16-8-2013 by thoughtfuldeliquent because: (no reason given)

I will bet you a dollar.....Put the $3,000,000 in escrow in case I win.....

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Since you are keen on learning about history and you declare to see flaws in my claim, here are some arguments to show you how wrong you are. I am grateful to you for you give me the opportunity to clarify things. I'm gonna try to spell the words for you, and all the people wrongly thinking that Christ wouldn't be born again in a rich royal family, aka the British royal family.

First of all, Jesus-Christ was a king heir.

in John 18:36 he states: "My kingdom is not of this world". However Jesus does not directly deny being the King of the Jews.

You should notice that the wedding between Joseph and Mary didn't come by chance. THEY WERE BOTH DESCENDANTS FROM KING DAVID! This marriage hadn't been arranged for no reason...

Second, Mary and Joseph had properties (lands), and were then rich compared to many poors at their time, even compared to the Apostles. Their wedding was decided to secure their properties. Read carefully this analysis:

At the end of the Book of Numbers an interesting loophole emerged. A man died without a son, leaving 4 daughters. They came to Moses complaining that they would lose the family land since there was no son to inherit it. Moses sought the Lord Who decreed that if there was no son in a family daughters could inherit family land providing they married within their own tribal clan. In effect they had to marry a cousin to keep the land in the "family." This made sense since land was allotted first by tribe then by clan then by family. Marrying within the clan kept the families in close proximity and preserved the tribal allotment. (Num. 36 1:13)

Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you'll discover that Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and descendants of David. Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, while Mary's line was through Solomon's brother Nathan.

Here's the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance.

When Mary accepted Joseph's offer of marriage she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's claim to the throne of Israel. Jesus was in the royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But He was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore of the "house and lineage of David."

This whole issue revolves around the facts that a) God has bound Himself to His own laws and b) He keeps His word; facts that should give you great comfort. God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind (Num. 23:19)... A virgin birth was also required to sidestep the blood curse on the royal line, fulfilling God's promise to David that a biological descendant of his would sit on the throne of Israel forever.

As you can see, Joseph and Mary were rich. Jesus was then rich too when he was born. I hope that this part will destroy your prejudices about the wealth for you to focus on WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: the parents' move.

The virgin model of Kate has already been addressed before in this thread when I said that the whole family (William, Kate and George) will go to heaven (ET abduction) to receive their NEW BODY. They will be totally virgin when the Christ comes back.

Third, William & Kate are as rich as Joseph and Mary at their time, comparatively speaking. William received recently about 12 millions of pounds from his mother inheritance who got this wealth from the royal family (her ex-husband Prince Charles) for her divorce. As far as William is not the second in line to the throne, his wealth won't be higher (he won't inherit from his father's possessions). Note that their way of life is rather humble compared to what they could spend.

Now, what Joseph and Mary decided to do for their son is to save him from the Massacre of the Innocents triggered by King Herod after the visit of the Magi who told him the King of the Jews was born. That's why they decided to abandon their properties (lands) to save their son, CHRIST THE KING.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


You should learn more about the Bible, then.

Originally posted by Olivet
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

You should learn more about the Bible, then.

Sorry, i dont read Fiction.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Olivet

 

I find it impossible to know the will of something that I'm not even sure exists.

You therefore cannot deny the possibility from God (whatever how you define Him) doing the same thing He ALREADY done 2,000 years ago. Again, 'MY' CLAIM STRENGTHENS THE BIBLE FOR THE FACTS IN OUR REALITY CORRELATE JOHN'S VISIONS.

Though one can look at just about any religious text in the world and come to the conclusion that I have. Here a link for you to enjoy.

www.unification.net...

You are mixing two things: 1) the wealth, 2) what people does with it.

The religions are promoting 'renunciation of wealth' for a main reason: this wealth 'must' go to the church. This is one of the reasons the Catholic Church asked the priests not to marry for their wealth would go to their family instead of the church. With this 'law' the church became VERY RICH, especially when 'indulgences' bought the (redeemed) sins.

Now imagine a world without wealth. It would be the opposite of a peaceful and glorious world. THE POVERTY IS NOT GOD'S WILL. THE SHARING IS GOD'S WILL. THE SHARING IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE GREED AND AVARICE.

Also I do enjoy learning history and notice that an alarming amount of prophets and saints tend to either be born into poverty or renounce their wealth to live in poverty.

You're missing the other part of this request from the Church: give your wealth to the church!

You say that William and Kate have to make their son renounce their position and wealth? That isn't something a prophet would allow. He would already have renounced his possessions.

Their son hasn't to renounce his position and wealth. His parents will renounce them. He will be Lord of the Earth. He won't miss anything for he will be self-sufficient with his powers from heaven.

See I don't care how many coincidences and crap you can pull from the bible, this spoiled brat represents everything that religion opposes, therefore your whole argument falls apart at the beginning. If this child wanted to aspire to be Christ-like, he would have to willingly and without being told to do so renounce his wealth first. Until he does that I am calling BS on your whole position. I don't need to read your 22 pages of thread to come to this conclusion when I find the flaws in your argument from the very OP.

George is not a spoiled brat. He is not even 'aware' of his position at his age (less than two months). The religion doesn't oppose wealth. Religion NEEDS wealth to promote whatever they want to convey while receiving money from those it asks to give money and properties to itself. This request is made for the church to be richer. Nothing in 'my' claim falls apart since all is a matter of perspective.

This is the way you live that defines you. The poors need the riches. What matters is how much of your wealth do you share with others. You could be poor BECAUSE OF THE RICHES. Or you could be poor BECAUSE OF YOUR KARMA / MISDEEDS. Maybe some poors were greedy riches in their past lifes. Even the Dalai Lama said once that the rich, beautiful and kind people deserve their fate for they have had good and generous behaviors in their past lifes. Remember that the communism has done in the past (sharing 'by law' instead of 'by soul'). There is a difference between sharing everything, and / or give everything, and HELP PEOPLE TO BECOME GENEROUS.

But I understand that the beliefs glorify the poverty, instead of promoting the HUMILITY that is the goal of this requested poverty. Since there are several levels of poverty (we are alway the riches of someone else), which one is the good one? Isn't it the one that allows you to see that your spirit is more important than the material world? Is it the goal of God for you to live in the garbbage? Does He prefer you to live in good health in a beautiful house with a beautiful and loving family able to share their happiness with others? Did you read the description of the New Jerusalem in heaven by John? Did he describe a world of poors and garbbage, or a city made of jewleries and light?

Originally posted by Soloprotocol

Originally posted by Olivet
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

You should learn more about the Bible, then.

Sorry, i dont read Fiction.

Are you insane? So, why did you write this:

Yes i read the thread, i cant see a Messiah called "George."..... surely he should have a Name befitting of a Messiah...

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, George.

If the Bible is a fiction why would you even consider a prayer from the Bible? Do you know what trolling is?