missmuffet Posted August 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.79 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2015 Kinda like the star of David, beautiful symbol twisted to serve Satan's doings....Satan has been trying to twist what is good and turning it to evil from the beginning of time and will continue to do so until God puts a whoopin on him in the final battle...Satan is the counterfeit of Christ.He has twisted some things that are Holy and has made them his own like the unholy trinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted August 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.79 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2015 Bo did you just watch the Vimeo or click on the link of George's "Jerusalem I will Put My Name There" ? No to both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 26, 2015 SHIN is the hebrew letter that stands for the word -- Shaddai -- one of the names of God. Thanks George,El Shaddai -- the Almighty -- is one of the most glorious names of God. It does tie in with the Lion of the tribe of Judah. How does one comprehend that the Lion is also the Lamb, and the Lamb is also the Lion? But both are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted August 26, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,164 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,887 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Perhaps if someone could post some verifiable evidence of their theories about who used it first and maybe put the entire debate to rest?I burned it with several hundred dollars worth of occultic how to books in the late 1980's... It came from Celtic pagan gods and because it fit the trinity so well when the Celts were introduced to Christanity, it made the transition with them. But the New Age Religion has gone back to the original usage of it..... and you can take either side of the discussion and not be wrong.However I have had many Luciferian worshiper's tell me that they expected that to be the mark of the beast or part of it, that I am not comfortable in people just thinking that it's a good thing. I hate disagreeing with George but sometimes one feels he must. Edited August 26, 2015 by other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted August 27, 2015 How convenient. Your evidence doesn't exist.If it existed though, if it was used to bring Christ to the celts, then it would make sense if that was later twisted to the occult in that region, which is actually an argument against your case that it was originally occultic. Perhaps that's why your evidence has conveniently gone missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 How convenient. Your evidence doesn't exist.If it existed though, if it was used to bring Christ to the celts, then it would make sense if that was later twisted to the occult in that region, which is actually an argument against your case that it was originally occultic. Perhaps that's why your evidence has conveniently gone missing.Did you check out this link? http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html . This so-called symbol of the Trinity is anything but.Since paganism existed long before Christianity, and was worldwide, it follows that pagan symbols and practices were brought into the churches and given a "Christian veneer". Study The Two Babylons by Hislop for more insight. Almost all the practices of the RCC are pagan in origin including the title Pontifex Maximus for the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.79 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2015 That one symbol that was a mistake sure has drawn a lot of attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted August 27, 2015 How convenient. Your evidence doesn't exist.If it existed though, if it was used to bring Christ to the celts, then it would make sense if that was later twisted to the occult in that region, which is actually an argument against your case that it was originally occultic. Perhaps that's why your evidence has conveniently gone missing.Did you check out this link? http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html . This so-called symbol of the Trinity is anything but.Since paganism existed long before Christianity, and was worldwide, it follows that pagan symbols and practices were brought into the churches and given a "Christian veneer". Study The Two Babylons by Hislop for more insight. Almost all the practices of the RCC are pagan in origin including the title Pontifex Maximus for the Pope.that article actually does not prove whether it was originally a pagan symbol or not. In fact, right off the bat, the article starts out by taking a verse (acts 17:29 I believe it was) out of context to prove its point, which automatically ruins the sights credibility, and it seems as nothing more then some poor soul who hates the nkjv ranting against said version... So back to the question at hand does anyone have any actual evidence as to who used it first-the Christians or the pagans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.79 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2015 How convenient. Your evidence doesn't exist.If it existed though, if it was used to bring Christ to the celts, then it would make sense if that was later twisted to the occult in that region, which is actually an argument against your case that it was originally occultic. Perhaps that's why your evidence has conveniently gone missing.Did you check out this link? http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html . This so-called symbol of the Trinity is anything but.Since paganism existed long before Christianity, and was worldwide, it follows that pagan symbols and practices were brought into the churches and given a "Christian veneer". Study The Two Babylons by Hislop for more insight. Almost all the practices of the RCC are pagan in origin including the title Pontifex Maximus for the Pope.that article actually does not prove whether it was originally a pagan symbol or not. In fact, right off the bat, the article starts out by taking a verse (acts 17:29 I believe it was) out of context to prove its point, which automatically ruins the sights credibility, and it seems as nothing more then some poor soul who hates the nkjv ranting against said version... So back to the question at hand does anyone have any actual evidence as to who used it first-the Christians or the pagans...There was evidence on different sites for the historical use for this symbol and sites that were against the symbol.It was a mixed bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted August 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2015 How convenient. Your evidence doesn't exist.If it existed though, if it was used to bring Christ to the celts, then it would make sense if that was later twisted to the occult in that region, which is actually an argument against your case that it was originally occultic. Perhaps that's why your evidence has conveniently gone missing.Did you check out this link? http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html . This so-called symbol of the Trinity is anything but.Since paganism existed long before Christianity, and was worldwide, it follows that pagan symbols and practices were brought into the churches and given a "Christian veneer". Study The Two Babylons by Hislop for more insight. Almost all the practices of the RCC are pagan in origin including the title Pontifex Maximus for the Pope.Just FYI- 'Two Babylons' by Hislop is considered shoddy work by a lot of Christians. Ralph Woodrow, a Christian minister was highly critical of the book along with others.Adding link:http://www.equip.org/article/the-two-babylons/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts