[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In New World Order See other New World Order Articles Title: The End of the world as we know it Source: Revelation: A Historicist View URL Source: http://barrymidyet.com Published: Mar 18, 2018 Author: Barry Midyet Post Date: 2018-03-18 09:01:35 by interpreter Keywords: The End, 2018 Views: 9766 Comments: 95 I've heard a lot of people say the end of the world is coming. And they are absolutely correct. 2018 is (or will be) the end of the world as we know it. From my book: Last Page Yearly Supplement 2018 in Bible Prophecy As I always do, I must add my standard qualifier here but with three words added this time: These predictions are based on the Bible, and thus cannot fail to come true— But I may be ahead of God’s (and/or Trump’s) timetable by a year or two. 1. The first of the last plagues – skin cancer – will begin to abet But the others – especially global warming – will continue for a while yet 2. Trump together with some NATO nations and Russia, et al, will also take out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi— The demon-possessed king in Raqqa (or wherever he is trying to hide from Trump & company). 3. Trump & company will also take out Kim Jong-Un, the evil little whore in Pyongyang. (See commentary on Revelation 17 for more on little whores of the atheist kind). 4. Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction. 5. Trump will also have to take out Mawlawi Haibatah Akhundzada, the evil king of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has already taken out many fighters there with one drop of the exceedingly great “Mother Of All Bombs” which gives Trump the upper hand. 6. The Good News is, that’s it. When all of Satan’s forces are killed off (as we are commanded to do in Luke 19:27), The long-awaited “Heaven on Earth” will commence, and the 24 Christian nations in NATO will rule the Earth unhindered by Satan for a millennium. Your kingdom come, your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, Amen! Barry Midyet Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-49) not displayed.       .       .       . #50. To: Vicomte13 (#45) (Edited) Well, that's a pretty long post, and I will have to say I agree with most of it, but not all. First, while are no longer in communion with the Roman Church, we are now in the (long) process of coming back together in full communion with the Orthodox Church(es). About 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury for the first time in history, gave permission for Anglicans to say the Nicene Creed either the western (Roman) way or eastern (Orthodox) way which was the first step, and allowed Canterbury to enter talks with the head honcho of the Orthodox Church (in Constantinople). And every year since then they have been meeting and we (the Anglican Churches) are now close (very close) to being in full communion with the six Orthodox Churches (as prophesied in the Bible). When that happens, and the western lampstand is restored -- but in Canterbury, and likely not Rome (as long as the present Pope is in power) -- the seven golden lampstands of the Church will again rule the Earth together united as one as at first -- and this time for a thousand years. Actually it will be 24 nations descended from the seven golden lampstands (or 8 lampstands if you include both Canterbury AND Rome). As for the conflict between the Irish Catholics and the Anglicans, well that is a very long conflict that goes back about a thousand years, and you have over-simplified it and have over-slanted it towards the Irish (or Roman Catholic) side. They were the blood thirsty ones who when they were in power (as with Bloody Mary) slaughtered all the Anglican priests and bishops who refused to say the Mass (or (Eucharist) the Roman way. The two versions are identical except for the placement of one word. Where the Irish Catholics say "the blessed ever-virgin Mary", we say the ever-blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only difference. They worship Mary. We worship Jesus. Not sure what any of that has to do with baptism though which (I think) is what Stone was asking about. interpreter  posted on  2018-03-20   8:29:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: A K A Stone (#48) (Edited) Actually, the Anglican Church/ England was never under the jurisdiction of Rome except whenever Rome sent someone to conquer England and force them to come under the jurisdiction of Rome (beginning with the Norman kings, and continuing off and on for about 1600 years and it got very bad, awful bloody at times. All (or mostly) because we refuse to say Mary was forever a virgin which we Anglicans consider to be a heresy. The fact that we are also a little bit more lenient when it comes to granting a divorce has also entered into it if you are talking about Henry the 8th. But that is only one king out of many dozens who broke with Rome. interpreter  posted on  2018-03-20   9:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: interpreter, vicomte13 (#51) Mary was forever a virgin If that was the case it would have sucked to be Joseph. I don't think Mary was a bitch that would do that to her husband. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-03-20   9:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: A K A Stone (#36) According to your beliefs which are probably the Catholic churches beliefs. What is the point in getting baptized as a baby? Does it make them Catholic? If so are they still Catholic if they decide to become Baptists later in life? Honestly baby baptizing isn't scriptural is it? Shouldn't people come to a decision about it on their own and choose to do it? Because baptizing babies honestly sounds kind of unbiblical idoltry type behavior. Idoltry probably isn't the right word. I'll answer. There's formal Catholic doctrine, and there's private belief. Formal Catholic doctrine is that the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by God, and that in the regular order of things it is necessary, though the Church recognizes that under certain circumstances, men who earnestly yearn for baptism but cannot obtain the actual rite, that their desire to be baptized suffices with God. Once you are baptized, you are a member of the Church, in parallel to the way that circumcision made a boy a Jew. What, exactly, baptism DOES is similar to the case of circumcision: God said to DO IT, he didn't explain exactly WHY or WHAT it does. Catholic theologians have pondered that for nearly 2000 years, and the view of St. Augustine is the prevailing one that is officially taught: Baptism washes away sin including, in particular, the original sin we inherit from Adam, that dooms us to spiritual death. Thus, the Church teaches, or at any rate taught in the past, that baptizing infants as early as possible is imperative lest they die unbaptized. Catholics are taught that in an emergency any baptizes person can baptize another, so nurses of babies born on the verge of death have been known to wipe water on the forehead of the dying newborn and quietly say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", to remove the risk of dying unbaptized from that little soul. Now, that's the "official" Church teaching. I personally think that most of that is right, though Augustine's "originial sin" reasoning doesn't appeal to me much, because it doesn't seem to be based on anything. What I personally think is that baptism places the seal of God of a child, and that this protects infants and young children from demonic possession. God seals his own little ones. The thing you say about making a choice, that is Confirmation. It is the parents who bring the child into the world, and the parents who circumcise the Jewish boys, bringing them into the tribe, or who minister to their own child by having him baptized, putting the seal of grace on him or her, promising to raise the child in the Faith. Then, when the child has grown, the child chooses of his own volition whether or not to celebrate his own religious choice to join his circumcisional people with a bar mitzvah, or his baptismal people with a Confirmation (which involves anointing with oil: a chrismation). As I see it, the baptism of babies is completely Scriptural, and was thought to be a holy act before scripture was written. When Peter baptized the entire family household of Cornelius the Roman, or when Paul baptized whole families, there is no reason to think that babies were excluded. There's nothing in Scripture that suggests that Baptism is intended by God to be the equivalent of Confirmation. This was all before the Scriptures were written, and the Church has been doing that - baptizing children - since the beginning. So, that's what the Church does, and thinks, and that's what I personally think. My thinking is within the lines of the Church. I'm not a big fan of Augustine, and find his logic forced, but I've certainly always been aware, from childhood, of that seal of baptism on me, and how it makes me different, and how it has protected me. There are your answers. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-20   10:22:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: interpreter (#51) Actually, the Anglican Church/ England was never under the jurisdiction of Rome except whenever Rome sent someone to conquer England and force them to come under the jurisdiction of Rome (beginning with the Norman kings, and continuing off and on for about 1600 years and it got very bad, awful bloody at times. All (or mostly) because we refuse to say Mary was forever a virgin which we Anglicans consider to be a heresy. The fact that we are also a little bit more lenient when it comes to granting a divorce has also entered into it if you are talking about Henry the 8th. But that is only one king out of many dozens who broke with Rome. You're just making it up as you go along. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-20   10:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: interpreter (#50) They were the blood thirsty ones who when they were in power (as with Bloody Mary) slaughtered all the Anglican priests and bishops who refused to say the Mass (or (Eucharist) the Roman way. There never were any Anglican priests in Ireland. The Irish were Catholic from the time of Saint Patrick. Always in union with Rome, from one tip of te island to the other. There was not much religious dissension there, and there was no Reformation in Ireland. Long before the Reformation, in 1171, Henry Plantagenet, the Norman French king of England (Henry II), invaded Ireland, and Ireland came under Plantagenet rule. The Anglo-Normans were French-speaking Catholics. The Kings of England did not become English-speaking and were mostly born in France until the late 1300s/early 1400s. Thus, while Ireland was conquered, there was no religious change. It merely meant a change of overlord. Ireland did not become part of the Kingdom of England. Rather, the King of England was also King of Ireland. Had the Norman kings sought to reduce Ireland to a province of England there would have been a popular uprising in Ireland that the small feudal armies at the time never would have been able to put down. Anglo-Norman rule settled in, Catholic lived with Catholic - there were no Protestants, at all, and the land lay in a medieval feudal peace that would last until the Reformation. England had a Reformation and much internal strife. So did Scotland. Ireland did not. The Irish were happy with their faith. The Protestant English and Protestant Scots were not happy that the Irish remained Catholic, and came over to Ireland in various waves to molest the Irish. The two worst examples were the launch of Ulster Plantation by King James in 1606, which launched a colonizing effort by Scots Presbyterians into the northern part of Ireland. The Presbyterians came in looking at the Catholic Irish, living in their homeland, as being the equivalent of savage Indians in the Americas, and sought to exterminate them, force conversion or drive them away. This provoked a civil war in which the Catholic Irish were successful at defeating the advance of the Scots Presbyterians, and limited them to 6 of the northern counties of Ulster. The second and much worse invasion came under Cromwell, whose view of the Catholic Irish was "to hell or to Connaught" (the wild western part of the island. There was nothing "even handed" about this. It was not the case that the Irish abused the English. The Irish did not invade England or Scotland. The Scots and the English invaded Ireland. The Irish did not abuse Protestant religion: there was no Reformation in Ireland. The Protestants came as colonizers and conquerors, and they slaughtered Catholics because Catholics would not convert. The Catholics DID not convert, fought back, held on, and developed a permanent antipathy towards the English and the Scots Presbyterians who had invaded them and slaughtered them. You pretend that there were two sides. There were not. The Protestant invasions of Ireland were purely evil, unprovoked and genocidal in intent. God defeated them twice, and Ireland was the first territory after America out of the British Empire. The Irish and the English and Scots can cooperate, but the history is what it is, and the English and Scottish sides of it are savage and disgraceful. Irish Catholics never did anything to the Scottish Protestants in Scotland or the English Protestants in England. Irish Catholics and English Catholics lived in peace under a common, Catholic king for 300 years. The Protestants came out of England and Scotland seeking to murder the Irish Catholics for being Catholics, like Hitler went after the Jews - with that degree of hate and that degree of evil. They failed. They were defeated, in the case of the Scots. In the English case, Cromwell subdued the island, but the Irish Catholics utterly rejected English Protestantism as the evil, genocidal, demonic religion that it was, to them. In Ireland, the Catholics were the good guys and the Protestants were the murderous agents of genocide and hell. There were not two sides to it. The Protestants came to kill off Catholicism. God defeated them. Ireland is still Catholic, and always will be, until the end of the world. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-20   10:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: interpreter (#51) And what difference does Anglican versus Catholic make in actual practice? The Anglicans support abortion on demand. Catholicism, of course, rejects abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. In fact, there is a clear delineation between the most Catholic countries of Europe and the rest. The following countries are the only countries in Europe that do NOT have abortion on demand: Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland. What do they have in common? They're all Catholic. Some of those countries do allow abortion in cases of fetal handicap or rape or incest. Of course, religion - Protestant AND Catholic - is fading in Europe, while Islam grows. The Christian-on-Christian fighting of the past managed to kill a great deal of the faith. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-20   10:57:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: interpreter (#0) 24 Christian nations in NATO will rule the Earth unhindered by Satan for a millennium. Most of those NATO nations have a negative birth rate and any increases are due to Muslim immigrants and refugees. Not to mention every EU nation has permissive abortion laws. When will this change? redleghunter  posted on  2018-03-20   23:26:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: interpreter (#4) Of course. God always works through men. In the Old Testament it was Isreal. And now it is through Christian nations. (The God of the OT is the God of the NT) Europe is dead. The largest expansion of Christianity is Asia and Africa. redleghunter  posted on  2018-03-20   23:27:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: Vicomte13 (#55) (Edited) There never were any Anglican priests in Ireland. The Irish were Catholic from the time of Saint Patrick. Always in union with Rome, from one tip of te island to the other. There was not much religious dissension there, and there was no Reformation in Ireland. Irish Catholics never did anything to the Scottish Protestants in Scotland or the English Protestants in England. Irish Catholics and English Catholics lived in peace under a common, Catholic king for 300 years. The Protestants came out of England and Scotland seeking to murder the Irish Catholics for being Catholics, like Hitler went after the Jews - with that degree of hate and that degree of evil. I never said there were any Anglican priests in Ireland (that I know of, but there may have been a couple), and I never said the Irish Catholics slaughtered any Anglicans in England. What I said was, Roman Catholic kings (and queens) slaughtered Anglican priests and the Anglican Bishops. But neither the Anglicans nor the Presbyterians liked the Irish Roman Catholics, or any Roman Catholics for that matter, and that led to fighting on both sides. And there is no way that one side was any better than the other side. There is peace now and you really need to quit trying to stir up all that shit again. BTW, my Grandma's Irish ancestors were Irish Protestants, and immigrated to the US to escape the fighting and persecution inflicted by the Irish Catholics. interpreter  posted on  2018-03-23   16:03:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Vicomte13 (#54) (Edited) You're just making it up as you go along. I only post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The split with Rome began when the Anglican Church (Canterbury) refused to accept the decrees of 7th Ecumenical Council which said Mary was forever a virgin. It had very little to do with divorce laws. That was just the last straw (that broke the camel's back). interpreter  posted on  2018-03-23   16:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: Vicomte13 (#56) For the record, many Anglicans/ Episcopalians do NOT support abortion on demand. And in the 24 NATO nations I'm speaking of, Christians are still in the majority. Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium? interpreter  posted on  2018-03-23   16:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: interpreter (#61) Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium? He's not going to. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-23   17:57:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Vicomte13 (#62) "Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium?" He's not going to. Wow, just wow. Do you think God is going to let Muslims rule the Earth for a millennium? interpreter  posted on  2018-03-23   18:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: interpreter (#63) Wow, just wow. Do you think God is going to let Muslims rule the Earth for a millennium? God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-24   14:33:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: Vicomte13, interpreter (#64) God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself. Right answer. The only answer. Why would Jesus "assign" His own Reign to any group, organization or persons? Liberator  posted on  2018-03-24   15:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Vicomte13 (#64) God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself. As I have told you guys before, Jesus returned in 312AD (when the sign of Christ appeared in the clouds) as all the world history books say. No where in the Bible does it indicate Jesus returns twice. interpreter  posted on  2018-03-24   17:59:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Liberator (#65) (Edited) Right answer. The only answer. Why would Jesus "assign" His own Reign to any group, organization or persons? As I have told u guys many times, God (and Jesus) and all ETs follow the Star Trek directive. They only interfere in the life/evolution of a planet when it is deemed necessary to preserve the intelligent life. In Luke 19:27, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that when He returns with a kingdom, He leaves it up to His followers to kill off all the bad guys. He was only here very briefly when He returned on Oct. 27th, 312 AD, and the rest is up to us. It is up to 24 Christian nations to rule the Earth for a thousand years as prophesied many many times in the Revelation of the Kingdom of God. interpreter  posted on  2018-03-24   19:34:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: A K A Stone (#52) (Edited) If that was the case it would have sucked to be Joseph. I don't think Mary was a bitch that would do that to her husband. A very very good answer. Couldn't have said any better myself. Kudos! interpreter  posted on  2018-03-24   19:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: interpreter (#66) As I have told you guys before, Jesus returned in 312AD (when the sign of Christ appeared in the clouds) as all the world history books say. No where in the Bible does it indicate Jesus returns twice. Well, the Bible tells you that when Christ returns, heaven and earth will pass away in a rush, that the City of God will descend, the graves will be opened and the dead will rise, and all will be judged. None of those things happened in 312 AD when a celestial pattern of planets and stars sort of formed "PX" A transitory pattern of stars and planets that, with imagination, can be seen as resembling a pair of Greek letters, which popular Christian thought associated with Christ (who was called that by the Christians - his name was Iesous, which did not appear in the sky), without the other stuff like the end of the world and legions of angels and plagues, etc., doesn't match the Bible pattern at all. When a similar pattern occurs in the stains in a teacup, one does not say that Christ has returned in one's teacup. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-25   8:40:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: interpreter (#67) A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-25   8:41:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: Vicomte13 (#70) A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. very true of Constantine paraclete  posted on  2018-03-25   8:52:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Vicomte13 (#69) Well, the Bible tells you that when Christ returns, heaven and earth will pass away in a rush That isn't in red so you don't believe it. You said the bible is full of lies. Quit talking about Christianity you don't know about it. Talk about Catholicism and the sun god, and the occult symbols you look at like an addict in a crack house. You are correct that none of those things happened in 312 AD or any other day though. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-03-25   9:11:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: A K A Stone (#72) (Edited) That isn't in red so you don't believe it. You said the bible is full of lies. Quit talking about Christianity you don't know about it. Talk about Catholicism and the sun god, and the occult symbols you look at like an addict in a crack house. You are correct that none of those things happened in 312 AD or any other day though. Catholicism IS Christianity, according to 95% of the world's Christians. The crazy fringe like you assert that anybody who doesn't see and understand things exactly the way your Pastor Bob tells you to, are not really Christians. Somewhere inside you have to know you're wrong, but you can't stop yourself. And the real irony here is that, yeah, the description of the end of the world IS spoken out loud by God and the angels in Heaven to John, and he was told to take dictation, so those, in fact, ARE red letter words using the criteria of "Jesus said it". Vicomte13  posted on  2018-03-25   18:35:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: Vicomte13 (#73) in fact, ARE red letter words Then I stand corrected. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-03-25   19:17:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: interpreter, vicomte13. mudbiy slim (#0) Trump & company will also take out Kim Jong-Un, the evil little whore in Pyongyang. (See commentary on Revelation 17 for more on little whores of the atheist kind). never believe a false prophet liar A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-29   20:54:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: interpreter (#0) Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction. another lie from mental midget A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-29   20:55:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: interpreter (#0) Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction. You dont get shit right liar. God wan rned us against liars like you. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-29   20:57:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: A K A Stone (#76) To: interpreter Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction. another lie from mental midget I am glad you brought that one up. I was a little bit off with that prognostication. First of all, the vector pointing to the demonic kings of the east passes through Qom, the home of the Ayatollah, the real king of Iran and not through Tehran the home of the puppet king. Second, it appears that Pres. Biden will be the president who takes him out (not of his own volition, but at the behest of our secretary of defense and our generals, after the Ayatollah killed 3 more US servicemen yesterday) And yes, as usual, I was a couple years ahead of God's time table --cause I want the thousand years of peace to hurry up and get here, and it can only happen when all the bad guys are taken out. And not only Ayatollah Kohmieni, but Putin too, also Mr. Un for good measure and anyone else who doesn't want Judeo-Christian nations ruling the earth. Barry interpreter  posted on  2024-01-30   1:04:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: Vicomte13 (#69) (Edited) Well, the Bible tells you that when Christ returns, heaven and earth will pass away in a rush, that the City of God will descend, the graves will be opened and the dead will rise, and all will be judged. None of those things happened in 312 AD when a celestial pattern of planets and stars sort of formed "PX" Heaven and Earth passing away, and the New Jerusalem descending on a new planet with no sea happens a thousand years from now and has nothing to do with the return of Christ in 312 AD, when the sign of Christ appeared in the clouds. That's when Constantine, with a bow, conquered all the known world at the behest of Jesus; and all of the pagan Romans (who crucified Christ) mourned over their dead soldiers (exactly as prophesied in the Revelation to John). There is no possible way the second coming can happen in the future because 1. the pagan Roman soldiers are no longer around (having died in 312 AD), and 2. No one conquers even the smallest of countries with a bow any more, much less all the known world. Barry M PS The sign of Christ (in use even before 312AD) was an XP, not PX. "Xp" is the first two letters of Christ in Greek interpreter  posted on  2024-01-30   1:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: interpreter (#78) shut up liar Bible denying sack of shit. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-30   7:51:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: interpreter (#79) a couple is two dumb ass and trump aint Biden. Idiot. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-30   7:52:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: interpreter (#78) Ah, were it only possible to take all the bad guys out. But men are born in a constant generation, more and more as the years go by. And large numbers of men go bad. Kill one, another takes his place. To kill all of the bad men would be to empty the planet. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-30   8:52:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: Vicomte13 (#82) Ah, were it only possible to take all the bad guys out. But men are born in a constant generation, more and more as the years go by. And large numbers of men go bad. Kill one, another takes his place. To kill all of the bad men would be to empty the planet. Now you are getting the point (of both the Revelation and the Bible). The seven last plagues are the method God uses to take out half of the planet. Two will be in the field, one taken, the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill, one taken, the other left. Two men will be in one bed, one life will be taken, the other left. In several other verses, Jesus says half of the earth (all of the bad guys) will be taken out. And Jesus doesn't tell fibs. Barry M interpreter  posted on  2024-01-30   10:46:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: A K A Stone (#81) a couple is two dumb ass and trump aint Biden. Idiot. I don't know where you live, but in Texas, a couple means two or more. And just for you, in my latest predictions, I have made that perfectly clear, by saying all the predictions will be fulfilled by 2030, which is exactly 2000 years after the resurrection of Christ (in 30 AD). That's because I'm getting tired of Bible-scoffers like you, and don't want to give any more nit-pickers any ammunition. interpreter  posted on  2024-01-30   11:09:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: interpreter (#83) Jesus may not tell fibs, but he DID say he would return that generation, that there were those standing there who would see him return in glory. He didn't. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-30   16:38:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: interpreter (#84) You always lie. Youre a proud booaster. talking the same bullshit all the time.You're not a real Texan. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-30   20:45:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Vicomte13 (#85) Jesus may not tell fibs, but he DID say he would return that generation, that there were those standing there who would see him return in glory. He didn't. You are kidding right? Jesus did return that generation to reveal the Kingdom of God as promised. He revealed it to John when they were both about a hundred years old. Like I said, Jesus does not tell fibs. If He did, you might as well throw the Bible in the garbage. Barry Midyet interpreter  posted on  2024-01-30   23:57:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: interpreter (#87) No, I'm not kidding. Jesus said many things about his return, and none of those things happened. I don't really want to go through the Gospels and Revelation and quote him over and over. In brief, he said he would return in glory on a cloud with great power and glory. He didn't. He said when he came, he would judge the world, separating them like sheep and goats, into Heaven and eternal punishment. Never happened. And the first century Christians who wrote the New Testament didn't think it had happened either. Paul was earliest, and he was looking forward to the coming of Jesus. The synoptic gospels came, and they spoke of Jesus coming. Peter's letter, written later, calls those who are questioning when Jesus would return "scoffers", and in the very last book written, Revelation, at the very end of the century, the author is pleading "Come Lord Jesus." You think he came back? Ok. But he didn't come back like he explicitly said he would. So if he didn't lie about coming back, and did come back, then he fibbed about the manner of his return, and what would happen. Like you, I like to interpret things. But it only goes so far. When a guy says overtly he will come in glory on a cloud to judge the world and all will see it, and that he will separate people before his throne, and give them each their recompense, I could see recompense in what happens after death, but the coming in Glory on a Cloud that all see? Never happened. And people don't see that in their NDEs either. So I assert firmly that No, Jesus did not return. Not like he said he would. If you want to interpret little things at the edges to mean he has, you can. But that seems to me like a rather desperate attempt to save the man from the consequences of what he said would happen. He may come like a thief in the night, they day may catch people unawares, but he is supposed to return in glory on a cloud for all to see. That's what HE SAID would happen. And that hasn't happened yet. (And it doesn't happen to each individual in their NDEs. It actually doesn't happen at all - that is not what people see in their NDEs.) There really isn't any way to reconcile our two views. Yours is based on interpretations of what he said. Mine is based on far less forced interpretations: I read what he said. He said he would come back, in glory, on a cloud, in that generation, and judge the world. And he didn't. Which means, to me, that ultimately it wasn't true. He was a good man, but he failed to do what he said he would do. That's the bottom line. I still like him, but I'm not going to bend reality to try to save him from himself. And anyway, not everything he said is all that great. Turn on your family and leave them and don't look back for him? Why? Because he's going to return that generation and judge the world? Well, ok, if that were true then it might be worth it. But it wasn't true. He didn't. So no, don't turn on your family, and don't give it all away. He said so, yes, but it's bad advice. And he said he would come back in glory on a cloud that generation and all would see and judge too, but he didn't. Jesus says some good really good things about charity. He also says some fanatical shite. And he either lied about coming back on a cloud and judging the world in that generation, OR he believed it, but was wrong, because he wasn't what he thought he was. Either way, abandoning reason to follow a first century fanatic who didn't do what he said he would do, but who will leave you broken, lonely, and poor if you follow him to the letter, is unwise. Which is why Christians don't REALLY do what he says. They do SOME of what he says - the parts that are reasonable and seem good - but they ignore the crazy fanatic stuff. Abaandon your family for him? No. That's what cult leaders say. Sell it all and give it all to the poor? Well, if they world were going to end like he said, sure. But it didn't. so no, you have to live in it, and your children, and theirs, and so on. So, Jesus demanded it, but he was an idiot in that regard. Don't do that. If you want to pick all the good out of what he said and do that? Great! Proceed! It's much better than what Yahweh said in the old testament (kill people for leaving home on Saturday, kill people for being raped in the city, or for eating shrimp) - that's insane. Allah said very similar things - kill the infidel, rule him and make sex slaves of the women. Chyeah. Or the Hindu gods with their idea that if you're suffering in this world, it's karmic justice for what you did in the last life, and you frustrate justice by helping the lower castes. Disgusting. Jesus has a much better message. But it's contaminated with insanity, and sealed with a promise that he could not fulfill. So yes, follow him, as far as is reasonable. But don't believe he's God - even HE said he wasn't (he said the father was the One True God) - and take him at his word: he was coming back that generation ion a cloud in glory to judge the world. He didn't. That's the bottom line. End of the discussion. The Jehovah's Witnesses knew the world was ending, Jesus was coming. They knew the world would end in 1917. It didn't. They knew it would end in 1940. It didn't. They knew it would end in 1975. It didn't. They told their people to not bother to educate their children, to sell all their possessions and wait. Three times the earnest dupes did that. Three times they were left destitute and ignorant. Happens every time, and will keep happening. So, it's fine to "read the signs" and see the end of the world coming. And if you fervently believe in it, it will: you'll die, and the world will end for you. But if you go farther and actually do what Jesus said: leave your family and sell it all and give it away. You'll die alone in a cardboard box under a bridge overpass, and leave your estranged family destitute - all over a fantasy. So, keep your fervor for Jesus within bounds, and you're fine. Actually DO everything he SAID to do, and you'll end up crushed and sad in a world that goes on and on and on. Because he wasn't God, and he didn't end the world like he said he would. Sorry. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-31   8:47:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Vicomte13 (#88) I know what you are talking about. But I believe you read them wrong. Will post in the future about it. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-31   10:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (90 - 95) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com