Adventist Online

Here is a discussion about the Man of Sin or the Anti-Christ.

This was asked of me as a bible question so here is where I'm posting the answer.  

VICARIUS FILII DEI
V = 5
I = 1
C = 100
A = 0
R = 0
I = 1
U = 5
S = 0
F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
I = 1
D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
======= ======= =======
112 53 501
TOTAL 112 + 53 + 501 = 666

Hope this helps Samraj R.  It has been a blessing to me.  The information where I found this was found at amazingfacts.org  under storacles lessons.

Views: 780

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In general and not saying you in particular what I see of the Charismatic evangelical world is the "spirit of ecumenism" much like what manifested with Tony Palmer and Copeland.  You should be careful about saying I blaspheme.  You have on occasion have seemed to do that "speaking" for the Lord Thing that could be construed as blaspheme.  How do you reconcile how Holy Rollers are reaching across to grasp the hand of the Beast power in the "spirit of ecumenism"?  I can almost guarantee I will not get an answer to that question.

You will get an answer! I have nothing to do with Copeland, The Toronto Experience, nor with the "Charismatic" movement. I believe the body of Christ should work together in the spirit, but in no way am I for the Catholic-New World Order, or any New World Order plan, device or religion, money system, legal system, culture or policy.

Since 1984 I spoke out against the New World Order, have researched, written, taught and communicated about the Luciferian plans and have been objecting and standing in court for my rights and in defense of Constitutional and Christian principles.

Since 1975 I have been active in ministry work, first with a certain ministry I left in 1987 along with a lot of other people because of corruption. After that I have been an independent minister and researcher of the Bible, history, law and the New World Order.

I do cooperate with other Christians and ministries that teach the truth, and try to build bridges and inform Christians about the sacred secrets taught by Paul and being a steward of divine secrets lost for almost 2,000 years. Discovering, thinking, learning about and walking by the spirit is my main concentration as well as the application of God's Word In Culture ( a ministry I founded in 1987).

I am an artist, art conservator, art dealer, musician and Constitutionalist and activist for God. Therefore I am involved with Culture to the hllt. I have also supported other ministries that are doing great work and whose research and teaching is as much as possible accurate. No ministry I know of is 100% accurate. I don't need to be approved of man, but I don't like even the smell of the New World Order, let alone questions of my association with such wickedness.

I do have compassion for individuals who are. Cathplic or have Catholic backgrounds lor other off the Word religious organizations, as I left an organization that became corrupt.

No you struggle with your unbelief and ignorance, blaming others for your lack of faith.

I have no faith in the babbling of people in non existent languages. I have no faith in man. I carry a Bible to church to make certain what the pastor is saying comes from the word of God.  God wants us to be skeptical.  I especially have no faith in sinners who hold a Bible in the air and proclaim "thus saith the Lord".  Sola scriptura.

Rabbit do you accept the writings of Paul? Do you understand everything he wrote and can you also explain it? Do you have questions for him?

BTW the writings of Paul is more difficult to understand than that of EGW.

I take things Paul wrote in context with the bible (in which some of Paul's writings are contained) and it's message of Jesus Christ as our guide along the path God wants.  It's possible I may disagree with others interpretation of things Paul wrote but that does not mean I disagree with Paul since they are not Paul who is now dead.

BTW - Difficulty is relative and based on ability it's not exactly the same as confusing.

Rabbittroup wrote: "Being a Christian is more than just "proclaiming the truth" it's about setting an example. Making a conflicting statement with the bible by referring to people with different skin color as a different race as a method to advance "the truth" just seems like something she should have taken her own advice on and remained silent about.. Race based on color/ethnicity is a political/social concept not Biblical."

Reasoning Wrote: You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote... still You have no proof of any conflict from her statements. There is no problem here, where is it? (Not bitter or fanatical :)

Reasoning,

Wrong.  I said what you quoted in my first post about my view of Andrew's jib-jab terminology and with regards to the deceased EGW's comments about interracial marriage & children.   My further responses were to the excuses YOU Reasoning, the living highlighted on her behalf.  I thought that was pretty clear in my statement below.  

The excuses you gave on the behalf of EGW who is dead are what I'm responding further to. You are alive, EGW is dead. I simply hope your highlights are not her final say on the matter for reasons I've already stated.

When you consistently overlook things said or only see what you want to see your responses come across as hyperbole / far fetch exaggeration. Seemingly to strengthen your unwillingness to accept the fact someone doesn't accept your highlights of the dead EGW as sufficient excuses on her behalf. 

You may not accept the evidence I provided as a good enough reasons to prefer the bible for learning the message of Christ over all others including the deceased EGW, but evidence was provided.  I'll just LINK to one my previous response and be content with God being the final judge of our decisions for the sake of letting this nonsense end.

To God be the Glory.

Peace



Rabbittroup wrote: "Wrong. I said what you quoted in my first post about my view of Andrew's jib-jab terminology and with regards to the deceased EGW's comments about interracial marriage & children. My further responses were to the excuses YOU Reasoning, the living highlighted on her behalf. I thought that was pretty clear in my statement below. "



Ok, what do you mean you said what I quoted in your first post? let's see, this is the first thing you said in this thread,



Rabbittroup wrote :"In a way I get the Jib Jab reference from Andrew . Some of what EGW wrote comes off as conflicting unlike the bible which I prefer and recommend people read over and before any other source including EGW."



Andrew and I didn't even get fully involved into what he thought was jib-jab, he did respond to me by mail and we will talk about it... But you came in talking about something is conflicting. Right there your wrong, there's nothing conflicting, you haven't proved anything conflicting. You say you have, but I haven't seen it.



Check it out on the first page of this thread, I didn't say anything to you, so I'm not wrong when I say the things you eventually started saying to me was express by yourself before I responded to you, so you can't say it was in response to what I wrote.



Again, check it out, I'm not making it up, it's right there on page 1...




Rabbittroup wrote: "Statements like the one below puzzle me from EGW. The bible talks of one human race, but EGW refers to Whites and Blacks as two different races. She seems to gives into political narratives.


Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, Page 214
"The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race."




Your favorite word Rabbittroup, "seems", "she seems to gives into political narratives".... With all due respect, that's in your mind, what political narratives? Because she refers to white and black people as races?



Saying she "seems" is not proof of what is or was...



Rabbittroup wrote: "To me what she stated above would be like Jesus Christ ignoring the adulterous woman because at the time it was acceptable to stone them (and still is in some parts of the world). "



Your opinion, EGW isn't ignoring anything... and it's not equivalent to letting a person die. Really!!? Wow.. It's obvious you have your views on her and what her course of actions should have been. But again, to my point, this is something you said pior to me responding to you. But you say this response was in response to what I wrote, and that is not true Rabbittroup.

You had it set in your head from the outset.. Perhaps you could've look for understanding of what she wrote instead of coming up with what Rabbittroup thinks. No... I'm not bitter.



This is still from you first post on this thread,



Rabbittroup wrote: "Being a Christian is more than just "proclaiming the truth" it's about setting an example. Making a conflicting statement with the bible by referring to people with different skin color as a different race as a method to advance "the truth" just seems like something she should have taken her own advice on and remained silent about.. Race based on color/ethnicity is a political/social concept not Biblical."




This is in your mind, because EGW referred to people with a different skin color as a different race wasn't conflicting with the Bible or a method to advance truth.. First, we do it in these days and times, yes, we're all of the human race, but we still refer to different people to a race. Asking a persons race is asked on many applications.


So, in making her larger point of why she encourages no interracial marriages, her saying white and black races isn't conflicting with the Bible, nor is it a "method" to advance truth. The narrative you have in your head doesn't hold any weight.


You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote. You still have no proof of any conflict from her statements. I know it may "seem" a certain way in your mind, but trust me, I'm Not bitter or fanatical :)




Blessings!

You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote. You still have no proof of any conflict from her statements. I know it may "seem" a certain way in your mind, but trust me, I'm Not bitter or fanatical :)

My first statement was responding to my view of jib-jab and confusing statements from someone who is dead and it is not the same as responding to someone who is alive like yourself.  

Andrew and I didn't even get fully involved into what he thought was jib-jab, he did respond to me by mail and we will talk about it... But you came in talking about something is conflicting. Right there your wrong, there's nothing conflicting, you haven't proved anything conflicting. You say you have, but I haven't seen it.

Andrew may not have fully gotten into it in a way you prefer but he DID COMMENT about how he "can't always see EGW's writings in the light of the bible."  And I responded with an example reflecting why I feel similar.  For whatever reason you over look that, but that just further stresses why you come off as bitter and fanatical about someone not accepting your beliefs.

Reasoning you have free will and don't have to accept it, but I've already stated why I prefer the bible and what it teaches about the message of Jesus Christ over all others including the deceased EGW.  I'm just gonna close by LINKING to my last response since most of what you said is redundant and full of twisted hyperbole.  

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037625

Peace


Rabbittroup wrote: "Reasoning you have free will and don't have to accept it, but I've already stated why I prefer the bible and what it teaches about the message of Jesus Christ over all others including the deceased EGW. I'm just gonna close by LINKING to my last response since most of what you said is redundant and full of twisted hyperbole. "



It's nothing twisted.. This isn't about whether we prefer the Bible over the writings of EGW...( Of course the Bible only, first and foremost). It's about your unfounded conclusions about the writings of EGW. You haven't proven anything.
Right, you say there is a conflict, so that means it is? Yeah, it's twisting going on, but it ain't me. I'm not bitter when I say these things, despite what you have form in your mind about me.


May GOD bless you and your family!


Blessings!

I said you appear bitter. Whether or not you are I'll just take your word for it.  When people constantly over look things and resort to hyperbole it does make it appear that way.  Beyond that I have the same response as before.  I've already stated my reasons and why I prefer the bible over EGW earlier which I'll link to again.  I have no desire to repeat it any further after the erroneous far fetched comments you've made already.

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037625

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037467

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037577

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5038294

To God be the Glory,

Peace


Nothing far fetched, you have a view on what she wrote that is not true. No more ,no less..

Right, you said I appeared bitter, or I seemed bitter.. (and fanatical)... I'm just letting you know what appears to be in your mind is not true.



Blessings!

Nothing far fetched, you have a view on what she wrote that is not true. No more ,no less..

Ok,

From your Malcom X comment, to over looking what I said about Jesus Christ dealing with the adulterous women situation and ignoring the fact that I was responding to Andrew's statement about how he "can't always see EGW's writings in the light of the bible."  If it played out the same way all over again it still would appear that way to me without knowing the facts or your sincere words.

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037625

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037467

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037577

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5038294

If you don't want to appear a certain way perhaps try responding exactly to what people say rather than ignoring or inserting hyperbole into the conversation which only seems to suit your narrative.  A narrative which seems content to ignore the simple fact that I gave my reasons as to why "I" prefer the bible and it's message of Jesus Christ over the deceased EGW's.  You don't have to accept them, but your opinion over what motivates me matters not.

To God be the Glory,

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2017   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service