I'm on a mobile so I just reply then crop out the bits between the square brackets I don't want...1st things 1st, how do I quote parts of what your saying as you do me? I've not mastered that yet. It just makes it easier to answer specific points.
That really hasn't still explained why It's a reptilian head? I really would like to know the relevance of that.From the times of the Reformation, Christianity has identified religious Catholicism (not individual Catholics) as having a part to play in the Biblical End Times. Some even go so far as to identify the Pope as one day acting as the "False Prophet" of Revelation.
Unpacking symbolism from Revelation, they would usher in the "Dragon" of Rev 13 and war which is patterned in the four horsemen of the Apocalyps
How about this from Revelation 12...That really hasn't still explained why It's a reptilian head? I really would like to know the relevance of that.
Thanks for the tip.
I'm unable to correlate this to my question. If your referencing point 3 I would argue that the head morphing from Christ's head is a serpent. There is only the one head not seven, it is totally hornless and devoid of crowns so I can't see what your getting at.How about this from Revelation 12...
12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Clarity is important, and freemasons don't want that, i worship lucifer who he is it's my own affair? Aren't that convenient...It's not really far reaching. You just ignore every single interpretation that isn't your own. Here is a quote from an unbiased person.
"Isaiah 14:12 does mention the "morning star" or "son of the dawn" in many translations, however there is little that connects this individual with Satan. "Lucifer" is of course the word used in Latin, and happens to also be the word used in 2 Peter 1:19. The word is an adjective, and not necessarily a name.
In the Isaiah passage, I don't think the context suggests it to be speaking of any type of fallen being though. The taunt in this text is directed towards the King of Babylon and it seems outside of the text to read eisegetically some other being into the context.
Venus, the planet, is known as the "morning star," and also as "lucifer" in history. This is because it's an early light in the sky, shining in the morning. I believe the language here in Isaiah is descriptive of the King, and illustrates the magnitude of his coming fall using pretty allegorical language."
Lucifer simply means, light bringer. So there goes the relevance of that word? It's just a phrase.
Perhaps that is more satanic then? Jesus revealed as the serpent (a popular occult theme) where God is the bad guy and Lucifer the noble hero?I'm unable to correlate this to my question. If your referencing point 3 I would argue that the head morphing from Christ's head is a serpent. There is only the one head not seven, it is totally hornless and devoid of crowns so I can't see what your getting at.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."Perhaps that is more satanic then? Jesus revealed as the serpent (a popular occult theme) where God is the bad guy and Lucifer the noble hero?
Isn't imagery interesting?"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
Matthew 10:16
Like you, I am interested in what is true and real. It just so happens that the God described in the Bible has entered that category in my experience.Look let me make my position clear. I don't do religeon. I find people who do nothing but quote from the Bible extremely tedious to be honest.
The book is not proven to be factual. How can it be?
Now a Haynes manual for a 1998 Ford Escort is a very factual book. If you do exactly what the book says It's text is proven instantly by visible results.
Now because the book is factual it doesn't then implore me to go around quoting different chapters to people because I'm aware that It's only going to be of interest to somebody who needs to fix their Ford Escort.
Now I was taken to church as a kid and if my memory serves me correctly then God is all loving, all understanding and all forgiving right?
Well then he will understand and forgive me for not believing in him. I have my reasons as you have yours.
God will know I don't have an agenda, I'm not representing any organisation, I'm a good guy with good intentions. I'm worried about our future and more importantly the future of my kids.
I can foresee some extremely bad times ahead and I'm trying to warn people.
So God shouldn't have a problem with me should he?
Everyone and their brother is free to write a book. And put whatever in it they want. Basically cooper was just repeating shit he read from a bunch of old ass books. And many if those have been debunked.He was reading you your own literature....or do you think he was just making it all up?
I know Bill Cooper was speaking truth....why?....because he's dead.
That includes Bibles then doesn't it? There you go, beaten with your own argument.Everyone and their brother is free to write a book. And put whatever in it they want.!
Not really. It's the arguments against Freemasonry that are mostly biblical. So I'm forced to counter their beliefs with some other type of belief. But I'm not here to make arguments per say. If I wanted to make arguments I would just go straight logic on everyone. And that's not what I often do.That includes Bibles then doesn't it? There you go, beaten with your own argument.
There are more similarities between the two than you think. Lavey wrote this in his book:When you look at all the actual evidence on Freemasonry vs The Church of Satan. They are literally polar opposites.
I'm not making any biblical arguments, Bibles are open to individual interpretation as this site clearly demonstrates.Not really. It's the arguments against Freemasonry that are mostly biblical. So I'm forced to counter their beliefs with some other type of belief. But I'm not here to make arguments per say. If I wanted to make arguments I would just go straight logic on everyone. And that's not what I often do.
I think we could say the same about every modern Religion's ritualsThere are more similarities between the two than you think. Lavey wrote this in his book:
"Satanic Ritual is a blend of Gnostic, Cabbalistic, Hermetic, and Masonic elements, incorporating nomenclature and vibratory words of power from virtually every mythos ..."
"Masonic orders have contained the most influential men in many governments, and virtually every occult order has many Masonic roots.”
The Satanic Rituals, Companion to the Satanic Bible pp 21, 78.
Oh really? So what's the logic behind all your previous personal attacks?I'm not making any biblical arguments, Bibles are open to individual interpretation as this site clearly demonstrates.
And thanks for admitting you don't use logic, that's where we both differ I think.