What Your Church Won't Tell You by Da...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30041 Mar 1, 2013
Gary wrote:
Hi Lee:
Lee, I am not sure if I understood your last statement correctly here when you said that the devil would never appear as a minister of righteousness. Lee, how do understand verses like these?
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his MINISTERS also be transformed as the MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Cor. 11:13-15
Here we see this is just the case Satan comes very subtle in fact so subtle the word tells us IF it were possible he would decieve the very elect, Matthew 24:24. So we see it is only God the Holy Spirit who can give one true repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. If not, the word tells us if God does not they will be taken captive by Satan at his will. 2 Tim. 2:25-26. Thank you. Gary
Yeah. You misunderstood me, but that's okay. What I said was, and I quote...

"In conclusion, if it was a requirement that we reflect the attributes of the Spirit before we can acquire accurate knowledge of what's written, the devil would never appear as a minister of righteousness, nor would he have ministers that appear righteous, either."

My point was that it's not a requirement that we reflect the attributes of the Spirit in order to have accurate knowledge of the bible and the interpretation of it. If that were true, then the devil couldn't be perceived as a minister of righteousness, nor could he have others that pose as ministers of righteousness, either. But, the devil does portray himself as a minister of righteousness. And he has people that portray themselves as ministers of righteousness, too. Therefore, reflecting the fruit of the Spirit is not a requirement.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30042 Mar 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Thank you. Moses outlived Aaron so what I posted previously is true.(SMILE)
C'mon now, WasteWater. Let's not fake the funk now, man.

You originally stated that Aaron "disappeared," leaving Moses by himself. I replied by saying that he didn't just, merely, disappear, but that he died. You corrected me, which is what prompted me to quote the three verses I did in order to prove that Aaron didn't just "disappear," but that he did, actually, die.

The way you proposed your contention was as if the mention of Aaron just ceased altogether from the bible-records. That's how I understood it, anyway. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30043 Mar 1, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Taking a wild guess at your meaning, I'll respond by saying that most know that not all the bible is to be interpreted literally.
<quoted text>Incorrect. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
<quoted text>That's only one theory of many-- key-word being "theory." The newest theory is that there was never a beginning to the universe, at all. And where did that one star in such a vast space come from?
<quoted text>Incorrect, again. Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So-called "scholars" and "theologians" apply a date and timeline to the creation account. But, in actuality, there's nothing that indicates how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Realists accept that no one should insert any specific amount of time between these two verses.
<quoted text>And how would anyone know that, including you?
<quoted text>Well, you don't believe in "God," so I can understand how such a flood would seem impossible to you. I don't think that anything I share with you will be accepted as a reasonable explanation, so...
<quoted text>Incorrect. All that was needed was the parents. For example, if it's true that all canines derive from the wolf, then only a male and female wolf would have been necessary to replenish the earth, again, with dogs. It's the same with cattle, too.
<quoted text>Actually, it does. It proves that the events must have taken place in order for so many cultures, from so many places on the earth, from such far distances away from one another, to feel compelled to share the same accounts. The difference between all these accounts and the bible is that the bible mentions these lists with people that are included in literal genealogies, and actual days and months. Most would agree that such detail would be beyond overkill for anyone just trying to teach a moral lesson.
Agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but I have no way to judge if most do or don't.

"In the beginning" is a pre-scientific notion or a metaphor.

Two reasons for the time-line. Those myths can be traced to the big city civilizations which formed in the Tigris and Euphrates river region. This is around 6,000 bc and is considered the birth of civilization in the Middle East. Also, the timeline is laid out in the Bible counting the various generations. In reality, man is more than 100,000 years but certainly not 4.5 billion when the earth was formed.

Good point about moral lessons. The Bible is the basis of an ethical system.

Thanks for your interesting post. It shows you think about things.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30044 Mar 1, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>C'mon now, WasteWater. Let's not fake the funk now, man.
You originally stated that Aaron "disappeared," leaving Moses by himself. I replied by saying that he didn't just, merely, disappear, but that he died. You corrected me, which is what prompted me to quote the three verses I did in order to prove that Aaron didn't just "disappear," but that he did, actually, die.
The way you proposed your contention was as if the mention of Aaron just ceased altogether from the bible-records. That's how I understood it, anyway. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am.
That's hair splitting. Moses remains and much of the laws and statutes are attributed to him long after Aaron has departed from the text. The truth is that much of what is in the Law of Moses was invented after Moses died. For example, the Book of Leviticus is written by the Levite Priests 600 years later.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30046 Mar 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but I have no way to judge if most do or don't.
That's not what I said, WasteWater. I said that not all the bible is to be interpreted literally. And those that acknowledge this interpret the bible accordingly. For example...

In Genesis 1, people erroneously interpret every verse literally. Therefore, they believe that light existed even without the sun. And this erroneous interpretation is because they believe that "God" literally said "Let there be" before all things came to be. In this, though, they don't understand that much of Genesis 1 is composed according to what I call "attributed placement." In other words, all things are attributed to "God" even though "God" had little, or nothing, to do with the event in the literal sense. This can be proven by reading the accounts of Job. Satan was allowed to, pretty much, destroy Job. But, when all was said and done, Job said, "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" So, as we can see, Job accredited "God" for his loss instead of Satan even though it was actually Satan that was to be blamed. Now...

As I believe, there was only one point of creation. All else came to be by natural succession. But, to give credit, praise, and glory, to whom credit, praise, and glory, is due, Genesis 1 was written as it was. What also must be taken into consideration is that for some reason, the creation account was written from man's point-of-view. In other words, it was described as to how it would have appeared had we been able to witness it from the surface of the planet. So, with that being said and according to the account...

When it's written that "God" said, "Let there be light," this was to explain how the clouds began to dissipate. This dissipation allowed for light to break through the clouds for the first time. And for the first time, this light could be seen from the earth's surface. We must keep in mind that before this, the heaven and earth were already created.

Now, as this light broke through, this means that heat also increased. This not only encouraged further dissipation, which allowed for an atmosphere and the ground to become more visible, but for photosynthesis to begin, as well. This, of course, allowed for the growth of plant-life. Dissipation continues, though.

As dissipation continues, this allows for the sun, moon, and stars, to finally become visible from the earth's surface. NOTE: Just from what I've explained, so far, we've gone over "days" one through four.
WasteWater wrote:
"In the beginning" is a pre-scientific notion or a metaphor.
Well, in Genesis, "In the beginning" means just that. This could be the time of the theorized "Big Bang," or whatever. But, after this, most mentions of "beginning" are referring to the book of Genesis.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30047 Mar 2, 2013
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
WHO TOLD YOU THIS?
or maybe halucination cause damage of your brain,and lead you to the next reincarnation stage,born in new body as PIG or cockroach?
to understand values of your own creator maker?
The Bible did.

Thanks for the juvenile insult.

GROW UP!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30048 Mar 2, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what I said, WasteWater. I said that not all the bible is to be interpreted literally. And those that acknowledge this interpret the bible accordingly. For example...
In Genesis 1, people erroneously interpret every verse literally. Therefore, they believe that light existed even without the sun. And this erroneous interpretation is because they believe that "God" literally said "Let there be" before all things came to be. In this, though, they don't understand that much of Genesis 1 is composed according to what I call "attributed placement." In other words, all things are attributed to "God" even though "God" had little, or nothing, to do with the event in the literal sense. This can be proven by reading the accounts of Job. Satan was allowed to, pretty much, destroy Job. But, when all was said and done, Job said, "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" So, as we can see, Job accredited "God" for his loss instead of Satan even though it was actually Satan that was to be blamed. Now...
As I believe, there was only one point of creation. All else came to be by natural succession. But, to give credit, praise, and glory, to whom credit, praise, and glory, is due, Genesis 1 was written as it was. What also must be taken into consideration is that for some reason, the creation account was written from man's point-of-view. In other words, it was described as to how it would have appeared had we been able to witness it from the surface of the planet. So, with that being said and according to the account...
When it's written that "God" said, "Let there be light," this was to explain how the clouds began to dissipate. This dissipation allowed for light to break through the clouds for the first time. And for the first time, this light could be seen from the earth's surface. We must keep in mind that before this, the heaven and earth were already created.
Now, as this light broke through, this means that heat also increased. This not only encouraged further dissipation, which allowed for an atmosphere and the ground to become more visible, but for photosynthesis to begin, as well. This, of course, allowed for the growth of plant-life. Dissipation continues, though.
As dissipation continues, this allows for the sun, moon, and stars, to finally become visible from the earth's surface. NOTE: Just from what I've explained, so far, we've gone over "days" one through four.
<quoted text>Well, in Genesis, "In the beginning" means just that. This could be the time of the theorized "Big Bang," or whatever. But, after this, most mentions of "beginning" are referring to the book of Genesis.
Well said. I agree with you.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30049 Mar 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Two reasons for the time-line. Those myths can be traced to the big city civilizations which formed in the Tigris and Euphrates river region. This is around 6,000 bc and is considered the birth of civilization in the Middle East. Also, the timeline is laid out in the Bible counting the various generations. In reality, man is more than 100,000 years but certainly not 4.5 billion when the earth was formed.
Good point about moral lessons. The Bible is the basis of an ethical system.
Thanks for your interesting post. It shows you think about things.
Thank you for the compliment. I don't believe in "blind faith," nor in believing what's written without meticulous investigation. And I also don't believe that science is wrong about everything. I do acknowledge that man's interpretations of the bible can be in error and not science. As a matter of fact, I separated myself from Christendom for the very fact that much of their interpretations are dead wrong. I'm still a believer, though. But, my beliefs are based on my own personal interpretations of the bible, which I've been studying for almost thirty years now, so...

One...I don't know how long it's been since man was created. I don't think the bible tells us, either. I believe Adam represents the first chosen man of "God," which is much different than the literal "first man." Because the bible was also mistranslated, many don't realize that between Genesis 1 and Genesis 6, the man Adam was only mentioned five times, actually, being first mentioned at Genesis 2:21. The four mentions of "Adam" prior to Genesis 2:21 are most accurately translated "the man." Of the seventeen times that the name "Adam" appears, between Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 5:5, only five are referring to the actual man Adam. Most of Christendom don't know this, though.

In conclusion, I believe that both, believers of science and believers of religion, are equally at fault. Both create and invent arguments just to discredit the other rather than trying to find the common-ground and similarities between the two.
WasteWater wrote:
That's hair splitting. Moses remains and much of the laws and statutes are attributed to him long after Aaron has departed from the text. The truth is that much of what is in the Law of Moses was invented after Moses died. For example, the Book of Leviticus is written by the Levite Priests 600 years later.
Your statements are based on supposition and nothing else, just like any other theory. Most agree that Leviticus was written sometime around 1512 B.C.E, which is even before Numbers and Deuteronomy. The latter two are believed to have been written sometime around 1473 B.C.E. In the end, though, it's all going to depend on who you ask, or what site you read from. NOTE: Don't believe everything you find on a .com site. For facts, use .gov,.edu, or .org.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30050 Mar 2, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for the compliment. I don't believe in "blind faith," nor in believing what's written without meticulous investigation. And I also don't believe that science is wrong about everything. I do acknowledge that man's interpretations of the bible can be in error and not science. As a matter of fact, I separated myself from Christendom for the very fact that much of their interpretations are dead wrong. I'm still a believer, though. But, my beliefs are based on my own personal interpretations of the bible, which I've been studying for almost thirty years now, so...
One...I don't know how long it's been since man was created. I don't think the bible tells us, either. I believe Adam represents the first chosen man of "God," which is much different than the literal "first man." Because the bible was also mistranslated, many don't realize that between Genesis 1 and Genesis 6, the man Adam was only mentioned five times, actually, being first mentioned at Genesis 2:21. The four mentions of "Adam" prior to Genesis 2:21 are most accurately translated "the man." Of the seventeen times that the name "Adam" appears, between Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 5:5, only five are referring to the actual man Adam. Most of Christendom don't know this, though.
In conclusion, I believe that both, believers of science and believers of religion, are equally at fault. Both create and invent arguments just to discredit the other rather than trying to find the common-ground and similarities between the two.
<quoted text>Your statements are based on supposition and nothing else, just like any other theory. Most agree that Leviticus was written sometime around 1512 B.C.E, which is even before Numbers and Deuteronomy. The latter two are believed to have been written sometime around 1473 B.C.E. In the end, though, it's all going to depend on who you ask, or what site you read from. NOTE: Don't believe everything you find on a .com site. For facts, use .gov,.edu, or .org.
I believe, assuming God to be the Creator, that God's law and scientific law do not conflict or contradict each other.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30051 Mar 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Well said. I agree with you.
That's excellent. We're getting somewhere, then. And if I can be of any assistance, take my advice and just ignore dr Shrink. Answering to her negativity only encourages her to continue, and that's a waste of your time. In the meantime, though, you'll find that my beliefs differ greatly from that which is taught by Christendom. But, everything I believe are bible-based. And if I don't know something, I'm not afraid to admit I don't know.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30052 Mar 2, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for the compliment. I don't believe in "blind faith," nor in believing what's written without meticulous investigation. And I also don't believe that science is wrong about everything. I do acknowledge that man's interpretations of the bible can be in error and not science. As a matter of fact, I separated myself from Christendom for the very fact that much of their interpretations are dead wrong. I'm still a believer, though. But, my beliefs are based on my own personal interpretations of the bible, which I've been studying for almost thirty years now, so...
One...I don't know how long it's been since man was created. I don't think the bible tells us, either. I believe Adam represents the first chosen man of "God," which is much different than the literal "first man." Because the bible was also mistranslated, many don't realize that between Genesis 1 and Genesis 6, the man Adam was only mentioned five times, actually, being first mentioned at Genesis 2:21. The four mentions of "Adam" prior to Genesis 2:21 are most accurately translated "the man." Of the seventeen times that the name "Adam" appears, between Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 5:5, only five are referring to the actual man Adam. Most of Christendom don't know this, though.
In conclusion, I believe that both, believers of science and believers of religion, are equally at fault. Both create and invent arguments just to discredit the other rather than trying to find the common-ground and similarities between the two.
<quoted text>Your statements are based on supposition and nothing else, just like any other theory. Most agree that Leviticus was written sometime around 1512 B.C.E, which is even before Numbers and Deuteronomy. The latter two are believed to have been written sometime around 1473 B.C.E. In the end, though, it's all going to depend on who you ask, or what site you read from. NOTE: Don't believe everything you find on a .com site. For facts, use .gov,.edu, or .org.
Ahh, but nothing was supposed to be written, at first it was an oral tradition right? To the best of my recollection, a couple of rabbis wrote it down at a point when they believed the tradition would be lost without a written account. SMILE

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30053 Mar 2, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>
One...I don't know how long it's been since man was created. I don't think the bible tells us, either. I believe Adam represents the first chosen man of "God," which is much different than the literal "first man." Because the bible was also mistranslated, many don't realize that between Genesis 1 and Genesis 6, the man Adam was only mentioned five times, actually, being first mentioned at Genesis 2:21. The four mentions of "Adam" prior to Genesis 2:21 are most accurately translated "the man." Of the seventeen times that the name "Adam" appears, between Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 5:5, only five are referring to the actual man Adam. Most of Christendom don't know this, though.
This is an important point. Adam is a translation which actually mean's "man" or humankind in the Hebrew Scripture. What's more, the Bible contains two Creation accounts, the first being the newest and the second to be older. According to Jewish scholars, there is even an older story where Adam starts out as both man and woman and separates into both male and female.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30058 Mar 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
This is an important point. Adam is a translation which actually mean's "man" or humankind in the Hebrew Scripture.
And that's why I shared what I did with you. I was hoping to show you that I'm not the type to pick and choose only that which might reinforce my beliefs. My beliefs, as I said, are strictly bible-based. And by that, I mean that I don't dare try to shape and mold what's written to create my own religion. I allow what's written to shape and mold me, if necessary.
WasteWater wrote:
What's more, the Bible contains two Creation accounts, the first being the newest and the second to be older. According to Jewish scholars, there is even an older story where Adam starts out as both man and woman and separates into both male and female.
I don't hold much to these so-called "'Jew-ish' scholars." For starters, the Levitical priesthood accepted and adopted a lot while they were held captive in Babylon, and they incorporated many erroneous doctrines as inclusions into the original, traditional Tanakh.
WasteWater wrote:
Ahh, but nothing was supposed to be written, at first it was an oral tradition right?
That's correct. And that's the reason the scribes were inspired to record what they did, beginning with Moses.
WasteWater wrote:
To the best of my recollection, a couple of rabbis wrote it down at a point when they believed the tradition would be lost without a written account. SMILE
You might be thinking about Baruch. If memory serves me right, Baruch was asked to copy and distribute the Torah. But, that was after the southern tribes of Israel returned from Babylon.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30059 Mar 2, 2013
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam-Edom
means MAN,RED,EARTH MUD
this old story is few passages written in Genesis
if you will listen BLL,for sure dark ditch is prepared for you,
BLL personaly dig by his theological worldly devil shovel this deep 6 feet ditch for you?
arGumentum baculum.....YAWN

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30060 Mar 2, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>And that's why I shared what I did with you. I was hoping to show you that I'm not the type to pick and choose only that which might reinforce my beliefs. My beliefs, as I said, are strictly bible-based. And by that, I mean that I don't dare try to shape and mold what's written to create my own religion. I allow what's written to shape and mold me, if necessary.
<quoted text>I don't hold much to these so-called "'Jew-ish' scholars." For starters, the Levitical priesthood accepted and adopted a lot while they were held captive in Babylon, and they incorporated many erroneous doctrines as inclusions into the original, traditional Tanakh.
<quoted text>That's correct. And that's the reason the scribes were inspired to record what they did, beginning with Moses.
<quoted text>You might be thinking about Baruch. If memory serves me right, Baruch was asked to copy and distribute the Torah. But, that was after the southern tribes of Israel returned from Babylon.
Beliefs don't concern me much.

The Gospels show that Jesus might agree with you. Changes nothing about the fact that earlier Creation account have been found.

Exactly. After they returned from Babylon there was a fear the tradition would be lost if not preserved in a written account, taught and discussed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30061 Mar 2, 2013
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
WHROEVER
agree or not agree
doesn't put you in the ranks of faithful true believer based lifes on G-D Grace Eph 1;2-12.2;8-9
not beliefs in phony bollony beliefs of BLL?
just accpet this guy as your god, and he will lead you to the deep ditch Mat 15;14
LET THEM ALONE;THEY ARE BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND.
AND IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND,BOTH SHALL FALL INTO THE DITCH?
so?good luck,when you fall in this dark ditch,be careful cocokraches,vermits,and maggots waiting for you
So insistence upon your personal beliefs and opinions is more important than showing love, compassion and understanding to others?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30062 Mar 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Beliefs don't concern me much.
Understood. And I agree, 100%. It's not so much what a person believes as it is whether or not they apply what they believe. Anyone can claim they believe in the fruit of the Spirit, but what profit is in their belief if they don't apply them?
WasteWater wrote:
The Gospels show that Jesus might agree with you. Changes nothing about the fact that earlier Creation account have been found.
True. Earlier accounts do exist. But, none possess the details of Genesis with such accuracy. And only Genesis differs from the "epic saga" routine. Of all the accounts, Genesis is rather boring, which is beyond odd.
WasteWater wrote:
Exactly. After they returned from Babylon there was a fear the tradition would be lost if not preserved in a written account, taught and discussed.
But, we mustn't neglect the fact that the Torah was written prior to any of Israel's captivities except the Egyptian. And what was written was not so much as to record the history of Israel as it is to document the original intention of "God" and His desire to do what's necessary in order to re-establish what was lost.
__________

THE FOLLOWING POST WAS TO dr Shrink
WasteWater wrote:
So insistence upon your personal beliefs and opinions is more important than showing love, compassion and understanding to others?
Excellent question and point.
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#30064 Mar 2, 2013
Hi Dr:

When it comes to prophesy I am very, very cautious to say the least. I believe when the last of the elect are in then God will return. Now I could be wrong but I do not see anything that would violate this prinicple thus far.

1- We are seeing sin run rampit like never before

2- We are making into law the marriage of a man with man and woman with woman when God's law violates this practice.

3- The people in poltics will not stand out against this sin and call it for what it is, Ten years ago this would never be the case now they are afraid they may lose their job if they speak out, as it was in the days of Lot so shall it be when the Son of man is revealed, Luke 17.

4- God gives us two HUGE pointers as it was in the days of Noah and also in the days of Lot, 2 Peter 2. Luke 17. God yokes these two events up with His return. To know more concerning the return of the Lord we have to look at Gen 6 and 7 and Gen 18 and 19 in much more detail to see just how bad it was in those days.

5- I believe God is lifting His hand of restraint like never before when we can see the corporate churches have fallen away from sound biblical doctrine that was once delievered unto them, 2 Tim. 4:1-6.

When a nation calls evil good and good evil then we can start to look up for our redemtion is drawing nigh. It vexes my spirit to see this nation fall to this degree I never would thought it would get this bad I was hoping the Lord would return by now even so come Lord Jesus. Thank you. Gary
Dr shrink wrote:
TO GARY CONTINUE
Final Rev 9-11 Final clean minsitry ow worldwide churches as per prophecy and what it implies,it leads to the temple completion before Armagedon Rev 8-11 is a repeating prophecy to finale over a number of earthly years.
THIS CHANGE EVERYTHING
So when world people say this:
Worldwide abominable churches is such bunch of hipocrities,they are devil,idols, pictures ,pagan altars worshipers, phedofile protectors,homsexuals,fornicat ors they are arogant,infalliable and smug
world churches obviously are demented sinners not believers teaching pure spiritual moral LAW OF God?
THE WHOLE BABILON GREAT CHRISTIANITY IS A BUNK LIE!
People belonging to the churches christianity are affected the way the"man of lawlesness wants to affect people,
to stumble them out of the salavtion way,to turn from the truth and eternal Gods Blessing
it means MOL is direct spirit of wickedness flowing from this prince of Darknes and death-Satan
2 Peter 2;1-3
People who curently believe their Lies and see the actual sins in the WORLDWIDE CHURCHES AND THEIR SECTS MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS FORETOLD TO HAVE TO OCCUR AND BE REVEALED A PRIOR TO THE FINAL TEMPLE JUDGEMENT CYCLE OF PROPHECY actually activating as Daniel 8;11-14 temple cleansing actions of massive proportions nears the worldwide organize religion Babilon Great-IMPRIUM FALSE ABOMINABLE CHRISTIANITY?
THIS REALITY OF PROPHETIC ACTIVATION CANNOT BE REVERSED,
PROPHECY WILL CONTINUE TO FULFILL TO THE END-THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE FINALE CYCLE
TO BE CONTINUE..........
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#30067 Mar 2, 2013
Hi Lee:

Thank you for that correction concerning the angel of light.

On your next point I agree with but I would just add this concerning finding real truth I would have to ask the question like this,

Can one have real truth with out real love?

I believe if one is truly saved he can be in error at times this is the case many times because we all only know in part. However, if one truly is a child of God he will grow in the grace of God and he will take correction by the word of God. So yes, I believe many can have truth and not be a child of God but I do not believe this is really truth to them made real by the Holy Spirit one can understand on an intelectual level and thus be subject to change sound doctrine from time to time because the truth never became real to them or they would correct their error in time So, if one has truth made real to him by the power of the Holy Spirit I do not believe he will fall from the foundation and stay there.

So, real love God's love will produce sound truth because love rejoices in the truth not in a lie, 1 Cor. 13.

Yes, Satan can come to counterfiet the truth but he cannot show the true fruits of the spirit of God when put to the test he will never endure true love, Gal. 5:22-23. These ministers cannot produce real love and real truth as we see today many have a differnt gospel altogether than the gospel of the Bible and when confronted with the true gospel they will show their colors like wolves in sheeps clothing. Thank you for that input. Gary 1 John 3:13-15.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. You misunderstood me, but that's okay. What I said was, and I quote...
"In conclusion, if it was a requirement that we reflect the attributes of the Spirit before we can acquire accurate knowledge of what's written, the devil would never appear as a minister of righteousness, nor would he have ministers that appear righteous, either."
My point was that it's not a requirement that we reflect the attributes of the Spirit in order to have accurate knowledge of the bible and the interpretation of it. If that were true, then the devil couldn't be perceived as a minister of righteousness, nor could he have others that pose as ministers of righteousness, either. But, the devil does portray himself as a minister of righteousness. And he has people that portray themselves as ministers of righteousness, too. Therefore, reflecting the fruit of the Spirit is not a requirement.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30069 Mar 2, 2013
dr Shrink wrote:
gelaufen kleine guwno po loce,
and findet kleine sheisse to deine gebe?
+ 3 farts
Ja. Es ist dazu gekommen.

Ich verstehe nicht, warum Sie nicht nur mich, sondern fast jeder als Feind behandeln. Sie spiegeln nicht die Fruchte des Geistes uberhaupt. Und es ist eine Schande, wenn nicht nur Atheisten, sondern auch andere Glaubige nicht glauben, dass Sie ein Anhanger des Sohns des Gottes sind, wie Sie behaupten, dass Sie sind. Peter schrieb, "denn auch hierzu werdet ihr wurden genannt: denn auch Christus fur uns gelitten, so dass uns ein Beispiel, dem ihr, seine Schritte folgen sollte: Wer keine Sunde Tat weder Guile im Mund gefunden wurde: Wer, wenn er geschmaht wurde, beschimpfte nicht wieder; als er litt, drohte er nicht; aber setzte er sich fur ihn, der gerecht Richter." Glaubst du das nicht? AuBerdem hat Sie Ihren Stolz uberholt. Wie konnen Sie betrachten Sie sich bescheiden wenn du so eilig bist, alle anderen zu sagen, sie sind falsch und gehen zur Holle, und Sie sind richtig und gehen in den Himmel?

Bereuen Sie, denn das Himmelreich nahe ist. Eure respektlos Wege gehen zu Ihrem Ende sein.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr ROCCO 110,009
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr lightbeamrider 4,079
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr George Justapawn 675,488
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr another viewer 982,282
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr awesome reality 46,189
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 hr UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 184,711
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Holy God s Child 619,347
More from around the web