Chipping And Sovereignty - Those Without The Mark Of The Beast

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

If we really are gods, is it possible that since we are all powerful and immortal, that we got bored with creating simple games and we continued to make games more complex and more "real," more believable, more convincing so that we could actually experience fear, lack, pain and sorrow in order to become more than what we are - to test our integrity in order to become more disciplined? Possibly the ultimate complex game we created was so good, we believed it was real and we got lazy and created machinery, mechanisms, circuits, and ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES with artificial intelligence to make things "easier," and to think for us to the extent that we let them control us more and more and eventually we forgot who we really were!

Yes, I would generally agree w/ this.

To which I would add, man is indeed created in the image of God, and is a Son of God, etc, in the sense that man - like God - is a CREATOR.

Where man stumbles, imho, is in discerning the true nature of cause and effect.

Cause always originates in the Mind.

Effect always ripples out into "lower Creation", or the "outer world" w/ which your five senses are familiar.. And as these effects can in turn be sensed and interpreted by your mind, they can in turn give rise to yet further causes, etc.

And hence there is a great cycle.

The trick is the break free of the cycle, and this *must* begin in the Mind first.

Even on this forum we frequently say that even if we are not Sovereigns in the sense of commanding great armies, great wealth, great property, at least we are Sovereigns IN OUR MIND, and that Sovereignty MUST BEGIN in the Mind, and from thence can physical freedom from tyranny be won.

But by first discerning the source of all causes (which comes from the Mind, or perhaps better said, this First Cause is God Himself, and man has access to this First Cause through the Mind) and in learning to control this source, does man become - like God - a Creator.. and so, a Son of God.

Any belief persisted in by the mind, sufficiently strongly and sufficiently long, will eventually manifest in the "outer" world (i.e., it will be created).

So fellow villigers, put down your pitchforks and torches and be honest with yourself about what really needs to be done to solve the problem. The anti-christ is not one individual, but all of us and we posses the power to change it.

Yes, I would agree w/ this.

OK, enough metaphysics.. LOL

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Just out of curiosity, can you please provide a 'source' for the definitions you have encapsulated in parenthesis?
It would add credibility for your belief system, if you were to provide the 'source' of the information you are delivering to the readers.

Obviously, those encapsulated definitions are not a part of the original text of the scriptures you are quoting, therefore, they must have originated from another source. Please!!! provide that source.

It bears repeating that the Kingdom of Heaven is inside you (Luke 17:21).

The Catholics are told that the Pope is absolutely and totally infalliable.

The Protestants are told that the Bible is absolutely and totally infalliable.

Both statements are (deliberately) incorrect, and are meant to mislead.

The only thing in Creation that is infalliable is God Himself, a small "spark" of which - the Soul - was given to you as a consequence of the fact that you are human, and this "spark" or "seed" is inside you.

Over the Greco-Roman Temples was written: "Man, Know Thyself".. Christians have historically regarded this as anathema and blasphemy, but indeed this is completely in harmony w/ Christian tradition. If man is created in the image of God, and if the Kingdom of Heaven is w/in man, then how can man come to know God unless he first comes to know himself?

Without knowing all the details of Trooper's metaphysics and theology, I would wager to say that much of it is in harmony w/ Biblical teachings.

The Bible, you must remember, is almost completely allegory.. and much of it was composed in cryptic, numeric symbolism, which only makes itself evident when you read in the original tongues in which it was composed (Hebrew, Greek).

For instance, Jesus teaches that if anyone wrongs you, you must "forgive them seven times seventy times" (Matthew 18:21-22)

Now, on the face of it, this has a LITERAL truth.

If you forgive someone who wrongs you THAT MANY TIMES, you will be sowing a great treasure for yourself in Heaven.

But there is an allegorical meaning to this as well. Numerically, to the Hebrews, 7 was the number of perfection, and 70 was the number of the conscience. So "seven times seventy" is Hebrew number-codes for "perfection of conscience". So what Jesus is really saying here, in addition to the *literal* message, is that "if you desire the PERFECTION OF CONSCIENCE, you must forgive"

The Bible is riddled w/ these kinds of codes and number games, which are not evident when reading in pagan English.

[sheisaceo]

I was baptized Lutheran, went to baptists schools for 4 years, graduated from a catholic university, married and divorced a jew and am now studying with jehovah's witnesses. Do not ever tell a witness that not all of the bible can be thought of as gospel because some of it is manipulated by the devil. That just blows their minds too much and they fall all over themselves trying to save the heathen (you).

[trooper2ls]

I too was dunked as a baby as a "Lutheran", I too have studied with the JW. The problem with the JW is their "correct" translation of the bible is based on cannonized text of 325 A.D. but they profess that the bible is God's word and perfect in nature. So on their own logic .. why did the council in 325 A.D. need to edit the original content of the old testiment? Seems a little fishy.

Another issue with JW is they believe that Government and Corporate are Satan's organization on earth, but you should abide by the rule of the Ceaser you are living under.

So present to them this arguement:

Marijuana is a natural substance put on earth and like all plants it was designated for our useage. It holds great medicinal value for man. So why would you condem a member of the congregation in the US for using a natural substance rather than prozac or something like that which is artificial and created by "Satan's organization" .. but if that same member lived in Jamacia then they would not be condemmed because local government (again Satan's org) permitted it? The elders of the congregation on Georgia presented the argument to Bethel and after 6 months of deliberation they determined that I should not become a member of their group, but I was still free to attend their meetings and they invited me to their picnics and such. They still never came up with a solid answer to the arguement.

JW's mean well, but they are mislead, like so many other organized religions. If you really want to scare the Witnesses then use their own bible against them. When they do the reading and discussion from the Watchtower each week make notes in advance and use bible examples that are not in the footnotes for the discussion of that week.. it scares them.

And, yes, my theology is based on Bible text only.. but original Jewish testiments.. not edited later versions. I spent 6 years studying Hebrew so I could better understand what was being said. English translations are extremely limited.

..J

[Jerry Pitts]

Read the attachment and place judgment on yourselves relative to your new found 'theory' in belief systems. It will be a matter between you and God. Trust me, God has a poor sense of humor when it comes to boasting of another god that you are worshiping.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Read the attachment and place judgment on yourselves relative to your new found 'theory' in belief systems. It will be a matter between you and God. Trust me, God has a poor sense of humor when it comes to boasting of another god that you are worshiping.

So Jerry, what is your belief system?

Also, what is this suppose to mean?:

de-baptism certificate.pdf (1.27 MB, 2 views)

Do you condone the baptism of the newborn?
If so, then please post scriptural support for such, thanks.



Peace

[ezrhythm]

Taken from;
http://crosstheborder.org/ss-motb/toc.htm

A Social Security Card has all the attributes of the Mark. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so I will present ample proof for you to consider. I'm confident that these verifiable proofs will withstand scrutiny. If you don't want to believe the evidence, then prove it wrong. Don't simply deny. A denial disproves nothing. Your Bible instructs you to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.


Washington driver's license doubles as North American passport

Contains an RFID chip
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...b_passport.htm

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Mark

So Jerry, what is your belief system?

Also, what is this suppose to mean?:

Do you condone the baptism of the newborn?
If so, then please post scriptural support for such, thanks.
Peace

The ceremonial act of Baptism is synonimous with the ceremony of 'ablution' (a cleansing of the body). This cleansing is cleaning the body (ridding the body of ) what type of ailment? Because it is a religious rite, it would be reasonable to assume that the cleansing is the cleansing of the spirit by immersion. A totally symbolic act of man, as the spirit is not otherwise affected by the water in which the physical body comes in contact with. The act of baptism is a token act establishing a covenant with God. Though we sometimes fail to recognize the symbology involved, the act of baptism is also symbolic of the act of being 'washed in the blood of Jesus', thus giving those participants (the one being immersed) a protective blood covering. The act of baptism cannot in any way elevate any of us to an equivalency of Jesus the Christ. On the other hand, unless a man or woman receive the cleansing that is offered by this 'immersion' / baptism and be 're-born', then we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Under the dispensation of the Law, it was required that "Genesis 17: 10 - 11

10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and ]it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."

The circumsion ceremony of the old dispensation of the law, as seen above, required every child to be circumcised, yet recognizing that the act was a 'token', a symbolism, of an agreement between that child and God.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for man(kind), but prior to Jesus coming on the scene, it was required of each man to be circumcised in order that the man be able to partake of the ceremony of 'passover'. The passover was further symbolized by placing blood on the lintel of the door of the home so that the angel of death would 'pass over' that particular home.

Because the Bible is filled with such symbolisms it would be prudent to anyone discussing the Bible to fullly acquaint themselves with the history and culture that was in place at the time of the writing of those Holy Scriptures.

As for my belief system. My belief, my confidence, my faith, my soul, my eternal life all reside in the fact that Jesus, the Son of the Most High God (Yahweh), died on the cross, was resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of God in Heaven. (Heaven = a 'place' NOT a state of mind).

Jerry
Exodus 12: 41 - 51

And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
42. It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
43. And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44. But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
46. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
47. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
50. Thus did all the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
51. And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

[Mark]

Forgive me if this is off subject. I don't me to derail this thread, but I just would like to respond to Jerry's theory.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

The ceremonial act of Baptism...

We are not talking about circumcision here. An act hat required no decision from the child (ouch!).

Jerry, you still have not shown scripturally where we are commanded to baptize an infant. Which actually, is an impossibility. For baptism requires a conscious decision--a pledge from the one being baptized. Tell me, how can a infant accomplish such a thing. And where did you get the notion that baptism is symbolic of being washed in the blood of Christ. Sounds like nonsense to me. Scripture clearly states that baptism is symbolic of being buried--dieing (from the old self, the natural man/woman) and being raised up or born again (a new life, dedicated to a good conscience toward YHWY--a spiritual being). This requires a moral decision, an act, I believe, an infant is incapable of making. It cannot be anyone else's decision--parent's, brother's, sister's or neighbor's. “Prove all things...”

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2)


Peace

[Jerry Pitts]

Well now. Let us start off this evening by allowing your very own quotation to bite you in the butt. "
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2)""

As I stated in my last post, 'baptism' and 'circumcision' are synonimous terms, both bearing an inference to 'cleansing' and 'sacrifice' but under different dispensations. If you cannot grasp that concept, then perhaps you should look a little deeper into your own soul, as opposed to attempting to deliver some pseudo intellectual interpretation of scripture while at the same time delivering a quotation with which makes you guilty of numerous crimes against God. I make that claim very adamantly due to the fact that you like the rest of us are in a human form, and are subject to the demands of the flesh unless you are leaning 100 % on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in every waking moment and through every action in which you involve your humanistic body. Based upon your quotation, have you been circumcised (not that I need to know, but only as a reference to this conversation)? Have you worshiped another god in the form of adhering to laws that were implemented by man as opposed to the Laws of God? Have you "kept the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you"? Search your own soul.

You also throw in another quote (from what source you do not disclose) "prove all things". Based upon your alleged knowledge of the Bible and the intent of the language of this Holy Scripture, then I likewise challenge you to "prove all things"... prove the existence of God. Prove the existence of Jesus the Christ. Remember, that was your quotation.

You are free to believe as you so desire. I am not here to attempt to change your beliefs. If you believe that baptism of children is not authorized by the Scripture or that there is no similitude between baptism and circumcision, then so be it; that is your belief. Hang on to it. On the same token, don't attempt to dispute the belief system of another by quoting a scripture that immediately condemns you of greater wrong. If you desire to not have your children baptized, then so be it. It is not my children that you are dealing with. My children were baptized prior to reaching that age of consent (either Biblically or under secular chronology of age). My children also bear a great desire to know God and to walk close to Him in their daily lives.

Now on a final note. If these children, not yet having attained an age of consent, were to die prior to being capable of giving such consent to be baptized, what will happen to their souls upon their demise? They have not yet been 'born again' by means of baptism. Then surely they must be condemned to hell for not having surrendered their all to God. Somehow, I remember reading somewhere in the Bible, that as parents we are responsible for the welfare of the children that God has put in our trust. This would make us the trustee for those children. What happens to the trustee that fails to abide by the demands of the office he/she holds in regard to the trust?

Have a nice evening.

Jerry Carlos

Originally Posted by Mark

Forgive me if this is off subject. I don't me to derail this thread, but I just would like to respond to Jerry's theory.



We are not talking about circumcision here. An act hat required no decision from the child (ouch!).

Jerry, you still have not shown scripturally where we are commanded to baptize an infant. Which actually, is an impossibility. For baptism requires a conscious decision--a pledge from the one being baptized. Tell me, how can a infant accomplish such a thing. And where did you get the notion that baptism is symbolic of being washed in the blood of Christ. Sounds like nonsense to me. Scripture clearly states that baptism is symbolic of being buried--dieing (from the old self, the natural man/woman) and being raised up or born again (a new life, dedicated to a good conscience toward YHWY--a spiritual being). This requires a moral decision, an act, I believe, an infant is incapable of making. It cannot be anyone else's decision--parent's, brother's, sister's or neighbor's. “Prove all things...”

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2)


Peace