WilliamL

Yes, it is an invasion. " Mexico Is Complicit In The L.A. Riots " The appearance of Mexican flags in the L.A. riots is exactly what it appears to be: a declaration of war by a foreign power. Just as the Chinese Communist Party regards every ethnic Chinese person living inside the United States as a subject of the PRC, regardless of their citizenship status in the U.S., the MORENA government in Mexico sees the presence of large numbers of Mexican nationals living in the U.S. as a strategic asset that can be, if needed, mobilized to advance its own interests. " As mentioned above, MORENA has long partnered with major cartels and drug-trafficking organizations inside Mexico that are directly implicated in the migrant crisis that unfolded during the Biden years. As I’ve written previously, if the cartels are terrorist organizations, Mexico is their state sponsor. What this means is that the cartel-state partnership in Mexico has a vested interest in ensuring the Trump administration is unable to carry out its plans to secure the border. " https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/10/mexico-is-complicit-in-the-l-a-riots-and-there-should-be-consequences/

Thus saith Keras. Wrongly so on a number of the above points. As will be proven in due time, probably within well under 7 years.

1. Men who are able to live according to the level of the flesh. Noachide laws. 2. Men who are able to live according to the level of the soul. Law of Moses. 3. Men who are able to live according to the level of the spirit. Gospel.

The machaira sword was a short sword used for close-in combat, as compared to the romphaia sword (Rev. 19:15), the main battle sword. These correspond in our day to handguns as compared to rifles. Street weapons as compared to war weapons.

" Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist Translation by Andrew S. Jacobs This early third-century treatise is among the earliest explorations of the Christian end-times focused on the figure of Antichrist. The term "Antichrist" first appeared in the letters ascribed to John (1 John 2:18, 2:22; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7) where it refers to people who deny that Jesus is Christ. By the late second century "Antichrist" was understood as a false messiah who was expected to come at the consummation of the world, before Christ's second coming. ... In addition to relying heavily on and harmonizing the prophetic book of Daniel and the New Testament Revelation to John, Hippolytus draws from Irenaeus's second-century Against Heresies 5, which also comprises a discussion of the end and Antichrist. " https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/hippolytus.html

Complete nonsense. Clearly you have never read any of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, such as Hippolytus.

In other words, your opinion about what biblical texts mean is based upon your understanding about what they SHOULD mean. (Whew!) Then show which ones were in error, not just claim it to be so. This looks like a computer-generated interpretation, which does not (is unable to) take into account the grammatical relationship between the words. For example: …וְעַל/And upon/over כְּנַף/a wing/corner/border, שִׁקּוּצִים/abominable things/idols of מְשֹׁמֵם/one who destroys/a destroyer [Polel verb stem (like Piel: intensive) Active Participle ms]… “… And upon/over a wing/corner shall be abominations/idols of a destroyer…” Comment: All kinds of presumptions have been imposed by different translators upon this phrase. For example, עַל means “upon, over,” never “for” or “by.” (Compare what your Bible says.) כְּנַף is a noun here; this spelling is never a verb participle, as the KJV mistranslates it (“overspreading”). It has no prefix ה/the. שִׁקּוּצִים is plural, not singular. Although many people presume that this phraseשִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם/shiqqutzim məshomame is equivalent to the similar-sounding phrase שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם/shiqqutz shomame of Daniel 12:11, they are significantly different. Only the latter phrase fulfills the prophecy by Jesus about “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” Matt. 24:15 Both shiqqutz and shomame are singular and lack the prefix ה, so shomame can act as an attributive participle, thus as a modifier of shiqqutz: “a desolating abomination” = “an abomination of desolation.” In contrast, 9:27ʼs shiqqutzim is plural, while məshomame is singular, so cannot be its modifier: it has to be a noun, “destroyer.” (Attributive participles must agree in number – both being singular or plural; in gender – both being masculine or feminine; and in definiteness – both having or not having the definite articleה . See Part 4 for the three kinds of participles.) The NIVʼs “an abomination that causes desolation” utterly corrupts the meaning of the Hebrew text. The NIV rejects the Hebrew, following the Greek Septuagint, which grossly varies from the Hebrew text of the Book of Daniel. Contrary to the understanding of many people, the original Septuagint scholars did not translate anything beyond the Torah, the five books of Moses. Translations of the other Old Testament books were added later by unknown translators at unknown times. Those translations significantly varied in quality. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1598-daniel-924-27-examined-part-5-verse-27/ If find anything grammatically in error in the above, please explain your reasons for believing so.

Ukrainian Pit Bull Terrier fights Russian Bear. Getting more than a few nips in.

Your argument was clearly stated in the subject heading, implied in the first post, and then confirmed in the post above, where you say "Both schemes were crafted by jesuits to protect the pope..." So you clearly state that neither 'false crafted scheme' has any theological merit -- without ever actually examining whether or not one or the other might in fact have some merit. Attack the logic of an argument, not the one who says it: always the better plan. (Ad hominem means "against the man.")

This is an example of an ad hominem argument.

So you claim. By means of researching out all of the biblical and historical evidence. Not merely a small part of it. Explained in a 8-part series of blog posts, the first four being these: 68. The Beast Is Not a (Seven-Headed!) Man, Part 1 Explains why the Beast of Revelation 13 cannot be a man, and reveals who and what it really is. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2778-the-beast-is-not-a-seven-headed-man-part-1/ 69. The Beast, Part 2: Its Seven Heads https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2779-the-beast-part-2-its-seven-heads/ 70. The Beast, Part 3: Who IS the Beast? https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2780-the-beast-part-3-who-is-the-beast/ 71. The Beast, Part 4: Azazel and the Abyss https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2786-the-beast-part-4-azazel-and-the-abyss/

I don't know what version you are citing, but this is by no means an accurate translation of the Hebrew text. Not by a long shot. My own translation of Daniel 9:27, explained word-for-word in meticulous detail, can be found here: 43. Daniel 9:24-27 Examined, Part 5: Verse 27 A very detailed translation and grammatical explanation of Daniel 9:27, which reveals various mistranslations found in different English versions of the Bible. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1598-daniel-924-27-examined-part-5-verse-27/ I challenge you to show where my translation contradicts the Hebraic text. If you cannot, then you are basing your teaching(s) on a faulty foundation.

Actually, a closer reading of Rev. 13:5 -- And it was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to continue for forty-two months... -- shows that the antecedent to the second "it" is "mouth," not beast. The Mouth of the Beast So the Beast and the False Prophet are rebellious fallen angels, not men. However, the Beast will be Revelation 13:5 …given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies… 6 …against God… 5 …and he [will be] given authority for 42 months [= 1260 days]. … 7 It [will be] granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. A biblical precedent for a spokesman being called a mouth is found in the case of Moses and Aaron: Exodus 4:16 …he [Aaron] shall speak for you [Moses] unto the people…he himself shall be to you for a mouth… The mouth/spokesman of Revelation 13:5 was previously revealed to the prophet Daniel in his vision of Daniel 7. He is the Little Horn of verses 7 and following, who is described in phrases nearly identical to those in Revelation 13:5-7 above – Daniel 7:8 “…[having] eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words… 25 …against the Most High. He shall afflict the saints of the Most High…and they shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time [= 1260 days].” 26 Then the [heavenly] court shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion… So this “horn” will be the spokesman/mouthpiece of the Beast, and not be the Beast itself. He will be a servant of the Beast-spirit. He will either be a man or a Nephil, that is, an angel-man hybrid; or possibly a descendant of a Nephil. The term horn is commonly used throughout Scripture to denote a powerful human leader. For example, “horn of David” is a term used for Christ. Luke 1:69; Ps. 132:17 The Mouth of the Beast = the Little Horn will rule for only 3½ times = 42 months = 1260 days, up to the 7th Trumpet. Rev. 13:5; 11:3, 7, 15ff.; Dan. 7:25-26; 12:7 At that point, which fulfills “the time of Jacob’s trouble,” the Little Horn’s dominion is “taken away,” and he disappears from view in both the visions of Daniel and Revelation. However, the Beast, which is a spirit, will outlast him, and not meet his final doom until the Judgment of the 7th Bowl, the Battle of Armageddon. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2801-the-beast-part-6-the-mouth-of-the-beast/

Satan has been called a dragon for a very long time. At one point, he indwelt a physical serpent. Do you know biblical history? Starts in Genesis In Rev. 5, Jesus is called a lion, yet depicted as a lamb. These two images are different spiritual garments donned by the Son of God, according to the nature of the occasion. There is a big difference between spiritual beings and the garments and armor in which they are clothed. When Jesus appears as the slain Lamb in Revelation 5, He is wearing a heavenly garment that shows His righteous act as a sacrificial offering for redemption. When He appears with a sword in His mouth in Revelation 19, He is wearing the armor of the Sword of the Spirit. Such spiritual garments and armor portray the spiritual realities at the time, ones not seen by earthly eyes. When Satan appears in heaven as a red dragon, that is also a spiritual garment, one that accurately portrays his nature at that instant. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2950-the-24-elders-of-revelation-part-4-the-heavenly-appearance-of-the-lamb/

Primarily the NKJV, but corrected to accurately provide the literal Hebrew text. Explained here: And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him… And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this [Manasseh] is the firstborn: put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it…but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become the fullness of the nations. [Hebrew, וְזַרְעֹו יִהְיֶה מְלֹא־הַגֹּויִם; the Greek Septuagint has, kαι το σπέρμα αυτού έσται εις πλήθος εθνών: and his seed will be in (or, among) a multitude of nations. The KJV mostly follows the Septuagint; but see Rom. 11:25 in Part 3, where the [Paul's] Greek follows the Hebrew text.] Gen. 48:17-19 https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2928-joseph-part-2-the-heritage-of-joseph/ Thanks for asking. The KJV authors, and the translators that followed in their vein, had a bad habit (IMHO) of cherry-picking out some LXX versions of passages with which to replace the Hebrew, without explaining their justification for doing so. Another such bad example is their notoriously corrupted version of Daniel 9:27.