Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40467 Apr 5, 2014
Liam wrote:
Ok..... how can I be clear... you erroneously believe that the so called "Roman Catholic religion". Wait, I can't even say that title like that because it doesnt make sense. "Roman Catholic religion"?? What is that? How is it different than the Byzantine Catholic religion or the Ethiopian Catholic religion? There is no separate Church called "Roman"Catholic. "Roman" describes a diocese and liturgical rite, not a separate Church. I don't entirely blame you for your error as most western English speaking peoples have slowly come to identify the Catholic Church with the adjective "Roman" and that's that.

Anyway, you erroneously believe that the Catholic Church in Rome was presented with a codex Bible; it was labeled "Word of God" and they opened it and read it. They came upon Mathew 16: 18 and thunk 'this verse says Peter was the first Pope!!" That scenario is impossible. The Bible didn't come to us like that.

Mathew 16:18 physically happened. It was an action put into motion. Not a verse that was written and later organized around. The Church came first, then the Bible. Before all the NT manuscripts were completed, men like Clement of Rome were already running the Church. He was ordained Bishop by Peter. See, Clement didn't read Mathew 16:18, he was the product of Mathew 16:18..

Let me first point out the lies above. Then maybe sometime this week I'll address the Marian doctrines in scripture as well as purgatory.

1. We do not believe Mary is co redeemer.

2. We do not believe that the "Roman" Catholic religion is necessary for salvation. However, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ puts a person pretty far from truth.

3. We did not remove the second commandment.

Ok Brother Lee, people spread an awful lot of deceit about the CC.
Forgive me for not answering sooner, but I began feeling overwhelmed. Anywho...

I call it the "Roman Catholic 'religion'" because I don't like using the term "Church" for any faith-based institution that doesn't adhere solely and fully to the law and testimony of our 'Elohiym. And yes. I do believe the Roman Catholic religion staked claim to Matthew 16:18, while misinterpreting the verse mind you, in order to authenticate their origins and solidify their authority. And for the record, there exists a schism in your religion as to whom the actual "successor" of Peter, also known as The Apostle to the Circumcision, was. Many believe it was Linus while the opposition believe it was Clement. But, neither would make any sense whatsoever, would it? In Rome and to Gentiles? Did Peter disobey the commandment found at Matthew 10:5-6? Was not Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles? Did Peter bring the gospel to more than just Cornelius and his household? And as to the supposes "lies," all that I presented can be found on Catholic sites, online. As to Mary being a co-redeemer, I'll fall back. Apparently, I didn't understand the full definition. As it seems, she's only considered somewhat as a co-redeemer because she's considered the cause of our redemption, considering that she gave birth to our anointed Savior. But, there's still much debate as to her role in redemption among the hierarchy.

Again, I apologize. But, there's my responses to your comments and questions. I tried to make it short and sweet, too.

Until next time, Liam.

Shalowm.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40468 Apr 6, 2014
Student wrote:
In April 1881, a call for 1,000 preachers was issued in the Watch Tower. That call showed that the Bible Students recognized that an essential work of true Christians is to preach the good news.

By 1885, about 300 Bible Students were sharing in the colporteur service. Those full-time ministers had the same objective as we do today—that of making disciples of Jesus Christ. w12 8/15 1:8-11
Well which was it? Preach the good news or make disciples?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40469 Apr 6, 2014
Student wrote:
Regarding the twelve tribes in Revelation. It could hardly be natural Israel, since there is no indication that that many accepted Christ during the time this class was being selected.
Where is it written that the 144,000 had to have accepted our anointed Savior then, before he ascended, or that the selection took place only then?
Student wrote:
Moreover, it would hardly have worked out that exactly the same number from each tribe would have responded to the call, since some tribes were far more populous than others.
This might seem impossible to you, but...
Student wrote:
And here is an important point: the tribal records of natural Jews did not survive the long period during which these 144,000 were being selected, so no record of tribal descent would be available for classifying them on any such natural basis.
So here too we see a spiritual Israel is meant, and the equal number from each tribe shows a well-balanced organization, with no partiality in choosing being shown. This grouping into twelve divisions of equal numbers balances well with the twelve foundation stones on which appear the names of the twelve apostles.(Rev. 21:14, NW)
Hopeful supposition, at best. Secondly, do you believe the tribes were lost to Yahoweh?
Student wrote:
Also, when Israel left Egypt they were accompanied by a “mixed multitude” of non-Jews; and here in Revelation 7:9 these spiritual Israelites have associated with them a “great multitude” from all nations.—Ex. 12:38
And laws were written that prevented the converted from serving as priest, or king.
.
Student wrote:
The majority of Israelites after the flesh stumbled over Christ Jesus as Messiah, and for that reason they are shown as being cast off, away from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, no longer associated with them in God’s kingdom, but in their places men from nations to the east and west and north and south come to be associated with what these patriarchs symbolize.(Luke 13:27-30) Jesus said those not in union with him were cast out, like trimmed-off branches that dry up and are burned.(John 15:6) Paul showed that many of the natural branches, the Jews after the flesh, were pruned off the theocratic tree and wild branches were grafted in to take their places; meaning by this, the formerly alienated Gentiles that became a part of the “Israel of God”. Then with these Gentiles grafted in, Paul adds,“In this manner all Israel will be saved.” NW. w51 9/15 p.564-565
Have a great day
True, if you limit the selection to just that period, but I don't.

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 11:1-2 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

Romans 9:3-5 ...for my brethren, my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH: Who are ISRAELITES; to whom PERTAINETH (or, to whom owns) the ADOPTION (as sons), and the GLORY, and the COVENANTS (old and new), and the GIVING OF THE LAW, and the SERVICE OF GOD (as priest and kings), and the PROMISES (made to Abraham); Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.(Note: Capitalized emphases, mine)

Believe me, Student. Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only organization that's ever attempted to replace the numbering of the 144,000 with themselves. Of a surety, you realize that without scriptural evidence, you've still not proven that the 144,000 are not of the literal tribes of Israel.

I propose two nations exist in the kingdom.

1) The nation of Israel consisting of 144,000 Israelites according to the flesh.

2) The Israel of "God" consisting of Israelites of the flesh, proselytes, and converted Gentiles.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40470 Apr 6, 2014
Student wrote:
Regarding the twelve tribes in Revelation. It could hardly be natural Israel, since there is no indication that that many accepted Christ during the time this class was being selected.
Where is it written that the 144,000 had to have accepted our anointed Savior then, before he ascended, or that the selection took place only then?
Student wrote:
Moreover, it would hardly have worked out that exactly the same number from each tribe would have responded to the call, since some tribes were far more populous than others.
This might seem impossible to you, but...
Student wrote:
And here is an important point: the tribal records of natural Jews did not survive the long period during which these 144,000 were being selected, so no record of tribal descent would be available for classifying them on any such natural basis.
So here too we see a spiritual Israel is meant, and the equal number from each tribe shows a well-balanced organization, with no partiality in choosing being shown. This grouping into twelve divisions of equal numbers balances well with the twelve foundation stones on which appear the names of the twelve apostles.(Rev. 21:14, NW)
Hopeful supposition, at best. Secondly, do you believe the tribes were lost to Yahoweh?
Student wrote:
Also, when Israel left Egypt they were accompanied by a “mixed multitude” of non-Jews; and here in Revelation 7:9 these spiritual Israelites have associated with them a “great multitude” from all nations.—Ex. 12:38
And laws were written that prevented the converted from serving as priest, or king.
.
Student wrote:
The majority of Israelites after the flesh stumbled over Christ Jesus as Messiah, and for that reason they are shown as being cast off, away from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, no longer associated with them in God’s kingdom, but in their places men from nations to the east and west and north and south come to be associated with what these patriarchs symbolize.(Luke 13:27-30) Jesus said those not in union with him were cast out, like trimmed-off branches that dry up and are burned.(John 15:6) Paul showed that many of the natural branches, the Jews after the flesh, were pruned off the theocratic tree and wild branches were grafted in to take their places; meaning by this, the formerly alienated Gentiles that became a part of the “Israel of God”. Then with these Gentiles grafted in, Paul adds,“In this manner all Israel will be saved.” NW. w51 9/15 p.564-565
Have a great day
True, if you limit the selection to just that period, but I don't.

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 11:1-2 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

Romans 9:3-5 ...for my brethren, my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH: Who are ISRAELITES; to whom PERTAINETH (or, to whom owns) the ADOPTION (as sons), and the GLORY, and the COVENANTS (old and new), and the GIVING OF THE LAW, and the SERVICE OF GOD (as priest and kings), and the PROMISES (made to Abraham); Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.(Note: Capitalized emphases, mine)

Believe me, Student. Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only organization that's ever attempted to replace the numbering of the 144,000 with themselves. Of a surety, you realize that without scriptural evidence, you've yet to prove that the 144,000 are not of the literal tribes of Israel.

I propose two nations exist in the kingdom.

1) The nation of Israel consisting of 144,000 Israelites according to the flesh.

2) The Israel of "God" consisting of Israelites of the flesh, proselytes, and converted Gentiles.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40471 Apr 6, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Believe me, Student. Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only organization that's ever attempted to replace the numbering of the 144,000 with themselves. Of a surety, you realize that without scriptural evidence, you've still not proven that the 144,000 are not of the literal tribes of Israel.
I propose two nations exist in the kingdom.
LOL - Dubs have written off everyone but themselves

http://kolhator.org.il/ , http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/indexUSBIP.h...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40472 Apr 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
To understand teachings about Mary you have to understand what she was and who was in her body.
I understand that of all of Israel, she was chosen to deliver the seed of promise, our anointed Savior, into our plain of existence. She is truly blessed among women. However, Luke 11:27-28 declares, "And it came to pass, as [our anointed Savior] spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But [our anointed Savior] said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
Liam wrote:
In the old covenant, the word of God was on tablets and housed in a gold ark. This ark was so Holy, that no Jew would dare look at it much less enter it.
I believe here, you're mistaking the ark of the covenant for the Holy of Holies. All but a select few were forbidden from handling the ark of the covenant, but none were forbidden to gaze upon it when in sight. And only the high-priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, and only once every year.
Liam wrote:
In the new covenant, the word of God became flesh and entered the world through another ark. This time the ark wasn't a gold chest, it was a human person. Mary. The belief of the early Church (and held to this day) was that God being perfect and without sin, couldn't have procreated with sin to create the perfect manifestation of Himself. Jesus. God and sin are opposite.
First of all, it's not sin in general that's inherited from Adam, but uncleanness. And uncleanness isn't inherited through the woman, but by the man and his seed.

In order for our anointed Savior to be perfect at conception and birth, he could not come, literally, from the loins of Joseph, or he would've inherited Adam's uncleanness and would not have been a worthy (unblemished) sacrifice, as according to the law. In this, a seed identical to that of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and Joseph, was placed in Mary's womb. This is the reasons our anointed Savior is referred to as the "second Adam." Like Adam, he 1) was "made" not from the loins of man, and 2) he was "made" perfect, or clean. In all of this, it was unnecessary that Mary be perfect, or even made perfect. Our anointed Savior still wouldn't have inherited uncleanness through her, except ceremonially. But, even ceremonial uncleanness would not be charged against him as according to the law. In conclusion, Mary being made perfect is strictly tradition, as nothing in scripture even suggests such a transformation.
Liam wrote:
Joseph, being a devout Jew, would have understood that His wife was the Holy Ark that bore forth the word of God, and knowing the scriptures well, Joseph wouldn't dare "enter the ark" if you know what I mean. God didnt call Joseph to be Mary's husband to procreate. Joseph's calling was much bigger than a normal spouse. He was to protect the ark so the Holy Mother could give birth and nurture the word of God.
* That's how you get the jist of how teachings of Mary derived from the early Church.
** to demand an exact Bible verse that explicitly states these things is pointless. The Bible didnt come to us like that.
Please and if you will, compare the following statements.

Example: And the children did not have dessert till they had finished their supper.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

You'll notice the terms "not" and "till" appear in both statements.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40473 Apr 6, 2014
yon wrote:
LOL - Dubs have written off everyone but themselves
http://kolhator.org.il/ , http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/indexUSBIP.h...
And this is common, primarily because people have and continue to misunderstand and misinterpret Paul's letters (especially). But, even if one realizes the errors, rarely will they come forward and exclude themselves from such an exalted position. And that's why we're warned, "For pride is the beginning of sin, and he that hath it shall pour out abomination: and therefore the Lord brought upon them strange calamities, and overthrew them utterly (Ecclesiasticus 10:13)."

Paul wrote, to Timothy, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work (1Timothy 3:1)," but let us not usurp an office of exaltation, especially by boasting against the branches!

Romans 11:18-24
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

For the record, the proverbial "branches," mentioned above, are not the nation of Israel as a whole and as many believe, but the priesthood. Paul wrote, in regards to this very matter, "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew (Romans 11:1-2)." To believe, then, that Israel, as a whole, were "broken off" that another might be "graffed in" is, indeed, "[boasting] against the branches"!

Student mentioned Romans 11:26 in their response to me. And if we come to understand that the 144,000 are of the natural nation of Israel and that the Israel of "God" consists of not only natural-born Israelites, of the flesh, but proselytes and converted Gentiles, as well, then that's how "all Israel shall be saved." It's my belief that not every person born of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, are necessary to be considered "all Israel," but at least one (and only one) from each tribe. Nothing in scripture suggests otherwise.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40474 Apr 6, 2014
Dogen wrote:
I will give the devil his due. The research the JW's copied on this issue is accurate. Trinitarianism did not exist prior to about 275 a.d.
Actually, I believe the first so-called "trinity" derives from ancient Babel, or Babylon, beginning with Nimrod (Father), Semiramis (Mother of God/Queen of Heaven), and Tammuz (Son). The dove was used as a symbol for the presence of Semiramis, as well as the egg (symbol of life) and hare (symbol of fertility). If I'm correct, Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz, became known as Baal, Ashtoreth, and Molek.

Nimrod - found at Genesis 10:8-9 and 1Chronicles 1:10.
Semiramis - not found in scripture.
"Queen of Heaven" - found at Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19, and 44:25.
"Mother of God" - not found in scripture.
Tammuz - found at Ezekiel 8:14.
Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz, are found in numerous scriptures.

By the time Catholicism had adopted a so-called "trintiy," the Romans worshiped Jupiter, Opis, or Ops, and Saturn, as a so-called "trinity." The Roman Catholic institution's first so-called "trinity" was "Father, Sophia, and Son," appeasing both, pagan Rome and the so-called "Christian." "Sophia" is Greek for "wisdom," and the dove was used to symbolize the presence of "Sophia," as well.

As I explained not too long ago, "Sophia" became a feminine entity, and caused much debate and dissension in the early institution of Catholicism. "Sophia," then, was replaced by Mary, and Mary was given the titles, "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." The dove was still used to symbolize the presence of Mary. This, though, didn't quench the debates, nor the dissension, so another replacement was decided.

Mary was replaced by the Holy Spirit. And like Semiramis, Ashtoreth, Sophia, and Mary, the dove was used to represent the presence of the Holy Spirit. This seemed most logical considering that even scriptures detail the Holy Spirit as descending on our anointed Savior like "a dove." And this is the so-called "trinity" that remained till this day.

And this is a brief history of the so-called "trinity."

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40475 Apr 6, 2014
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL - Dubs have written off everyone but themselves
http://kolhator.org.il/ , http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/indexUSBIP.h...
https://www.google.com/search? q=Black+Presence+in+ancient+Eu rope&espv=210&es_sm=12 2&source=lnms&tbm=isch &sa=X&ei=fnVBU8a1HrPSs ASUxIDwAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ &biw=1455&bih=727#q=Bl ack+Nobility+in+ancient+Britia n&tbm=isch

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40476 Apr 6, 2014
Dogen wrote:
I will give the devil his due. The research the JW's copied on this issue is accurate. Trinitarianism did not exist prior to about 275 a.d.
Correction: I had said that Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz, are found in numerous scriptures, but I meant to say "Baal, Ashtoreth, and Molek."

And I'd like to include this little tidbit, if we don't mind, as it's interesting how this all ties together.

As I had mentioned, Jupiter, Opis, or Ops, and Saturn, were worshiped by the Romans as a so-called "trinity," or "triune god." The so-called "Father" was represented by Jupiter, the so-called "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" was represented by Opis, or Ops, and the so-called "Son" was represented by Saturn.

Now, the festival that honored the so-called "Son," Saturn, was called "Saturnalia," or the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," observed on December 25th if I remember correctly. When Catholicism adopted a so-called "trinity" as their own, they too adopted the festival called "Saturnalia," but soon called it "Christmas." And as Saturnalia was to celebrate the so-called "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," Christmas was to celebrate the so-called "Birthday of the Unconquerable Son!"

2Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the 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.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40477 Apr 6, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I believe the first so-called "trinity" derives from ancient Babel, or Babylon, beginning with Nimrod (Father), Semiramis (Mother of God/Queen of Heaven), and Tammuz (Son).
And then there was Cush, Semiramis, and Nimrod. Semiramis btw means branch bearer - hence Christ the Branch.

The wt is a little like reading the Warren Commission. Part science and part science fiction.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40479 Apr 6, 2014
yon wrote:
And then there was Cush, Semiramis, and Nimrod. Semiramis btw means branch bearer - hence Christ the Branch.
The wt is a little like reading the Warren Commission. Part science and part science fiction.
Correct!

I forgot that the original "trinity" was Cush (Father), Semiramis (Mother of God and Queen of Heaven), and Nimrod (Son)! And for the sake of those reading these posts...

Accordingly, Nimrod murdered Cush and married his own mother, Semiramis. Then, when Tammuz was born, after Nimrod was killed, Semiramis convinced the nation that Tammuz was Nimrod resurrected. Now, Nimrod's symbol was the fir-tree. And to honor Nimrod and show love and devotion to him, Semiramis enacted a decree that each town was to erect a fir tree in the center of town and place gifts beneath the tree each and every year, preferably during the winter solstice. Then, to decorate the trees, they were to hang the heads of his enemies and those in prison (heretics and unbelievers) on the trees.
__________

For the record, the Ethiopians are the direct descendants of Ham and Cush. The Egyptians are the direct descendants of Ham and Mizraim. I just thought I would point that out.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40481 Apr 6, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
For the record, the Ethiopians are the direct descendants of Ham and Cush. The Egyptians are the direct descendants of Ham and Mizraim. I just thought I would point that out.
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary pg 330... Ham - the youngest son of Noah, born probably about 96 years before the Flood; and one of the eight persons to live through the Flood. He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites.

New Compact Bible Dictionary Authorize by Billy Graham: Ham - The youngest son of Noah born probably about 96 years before the Flood; and one of eight person to live through the Flood. He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites.

Imagine that? Then from whom do the so-called "Negroes" descend? Ah...this ain't the time, nor place.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40482 Apr 6, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Correct!
I forgot that the original "trinity" was Cush (Father), Semiramis (Mother of God and Queen of Heaven), and Nimrod (Son)! And for the sake of those reading these posts...
Accordingly, Nimrod murdered Cush and married his own mother, Semiramis. Then, when Tammuz was born, after Nimrod was killed, Semiramis convinced the nation that Tammuz was Nimrod resurrected. Now, Nimrod's symbol was the fir-tree. And to honor Nimrod and show love and devotion to him, Semiramis enacted a decree that each town was to erect a fir tree in the center of town and place gifts beneath the tree each and every year, preferably during the winter solstice. Then, to decorate the trees, they were to hang the heads of his enemies and those in prison (heretics and unbelievers) on the trees.
The story I got was that Nimrod was killed somehow and was resurrected into the SUN and how Semiramis claimed that she became pregnant - by his rays. Hence the beginning of Sun worship, the trinity and Christmas -(Tammuz's birthday)- and Easter (Ishtar) who Tammuz hooked up with and produced presumably lots of Ishtar bunnies - meantime Cush had been muscled out of the way like the RCC does with their elevation of Mary and Jesus. Not sure where beads come in.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40483 Apr 6, 2014
yon wrote:
The story I got was that Nimrod was killed somehow and was resurrected into the SUN and how Semiramis claimed that she became pregnant - by his rays.
Yes. It was said that Nimrod became the sun. And Semiramis began telling her people that Nimrod would soon return unto them by way of birth of a son-god, which was Tammuz. Then, it was taught that Tammuz, too, would die, but that he would resurrect as himself.
yon wrote:
Hence the beginning of Sun worship, the trinity and Christmas -(Tammuz's birthday)- and Easter (Ishtar) who Tammuz hooked up with and produced presumably lots of Ishtar bunnies - meantime Cush had been muscled out of the way like the RCC does with their elevation of Mary and Jesus. Not sure where beads come in.
1) I've only read that Semiramis, Beltis, Ishtar, Astarte, Eostre, and Easter, were all one and the same.

2) I was reading, this morning, as to how many of the pagan religions exalt the Mother/Son combination even before the chief-deity, including Catholicism.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40484 Apr 6, 2014
It's how Babylon hijacked Gen 3:15

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40485 Apr 6, 2014
yon wrote:
It's how Babylon hijacked Gen 3:15
Well, Nimrod was born not long after the waters had desiccated, after the flood. And being the grandson of Ham, of a surety, Nimrod was made aware of the previous world and the reasons it was destroyed.

Now, Ham was not as righteous as some might assume, for it was Ham that had relations with his mother - Noah's wife - or "saw the nakedness of his father," as it's written. Leviticus 18:8 says and to understand, "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." Ham impregnated his mother, Noah's wife, and that's why Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed.(Note: The curse was partially fulfilled when the nation of Israel overthrew the Canaanites and took possession of the land of Canaan. I say "partially," because Israel didn't destroy all the Canaanites as they were commanded.) Anyway, it's written...

Ecclesiasticus 23:22-25
22 Thus shall it go also with the wife that leaveth her husband, and bringeth in an heir by another.
23 For first, she hath disobeyed the law of the most High; and secondly, she hath trespassed against her own husband; and thirdly, she hath played the whore in adultery, and brought children by another man.
24 She shall be brought out into the congregation, and inquisition shall be made of her children.
25 Her children shall not take root, and her branches shall bring forth no fruit.

My point is, Ham was not righteous, and he was alive before the flood. Now, the flood occurred because, according to Genesis 6, the angels had left their habitation and were having children by the daughters of men. Then, it's written, "And YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5). But, how did it get to this extent?

Now, believers agree that the angels came to earth. But, was their only folly impregnating women and having children, or were they guilty of more? According to Enoch: "And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings,'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon (Enoch 8:2-3)."

The "astology" taught by the angel Baraqijal was a polluted version of the "signs" arranged by our 'Elohiym. The most High said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years (Genesis 1:14)." I believe that these "signs" are the prophesies regarding our anointed Savior. And I believe it was these "signs" that Baraqijal polluted, giving us the demonic practice of astrology. By examination, we can see how that even the astrological symbology still coincides with the original "signs" given by the most High. Our anointed Savior was born during what's now known as "Virgo," symbolizing how our anointed Savior was born of a virgin. The sign just before this is "Leo." If we begin at Virgo, then Leo would be the last constellation, symbolizing how our anointed Savior triumphs as the "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah"!

I believe that when Baraqijal taught astrology to man, that he replaced our anointed Savior and made himself servant to a false-god - Satan. And after the flood, men began making themselves "God." This agrees with both, Isaiah 14:12-14 and Genesis 3:1-7. And this is how the Babylonians hijacked Genesis 3:15.

Tell me what you think?
Student

Nogales, Mexico

#40486 Apr 6, 2014
Daily Text

Monday, April 7


You will be bound to come up against my people.—Ezek. 38:16.


Knowing in advance about this attack on God’s people does not make us overly anxious. Rather, our main concern is, not our own salvation, but the sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the vindication of his sovereignty. In fact, Jehovah declared more than 60 times:“You will have to know that I am Jehovah.”(Ezek. 6:7; see footnote.) Hence, we look forward with intense interest to the fulfillment of that outstanding aspect of Ezekiel’s prophecy, trusting that “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.”(2 Pet. 2:9) Meanwhile, we want to use every opportunity to strengthen our faith so that we will be able to keep our integrity to Jehovah no matter what tests we may face. What should we do? We should pray, study God’s Word and meditate on it, and share the Kingdom message with others. By doing so, we keep our hope of everlasting life firm, like “an anchor.”—Heb. 6:19; Ps. 25:21. w12 9/15 1:8, 9
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40487 Apr 6, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Now, Ham was not as righteous as some might assume, for it was Ham that had relations with his mother - Noah's wife - or "saw the nakedness of his father," as it's written. Leviticus 18:8 says and to understand, "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." Ham impregnated his mother,......... And this is how the Babylonians hijacked Genesis 3:15.
Tell me what you think?
I'm going to have to medicate on this.
mikesmithons

Blairsville, PA

#40489 Apr 7, 2014

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) 4 min Aura Mytha 88,536
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min X Pendable 184,819
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min karl44 977,505
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 27 min Pad 665,618
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 28 min truth 715
Salalah gay 37 min Sallu 6
Did O.J. toss murder into a Brentwood street g... 40 min Knock off purse s... 9
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr onemale 284,728
More from around the web