Some believe he is the chosen one of end times.

[BlindSeeker]

2 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

I agree

I don't know any one who doesn't like thinking other people think their special or right....

[Shilohsfoal]

1 minute ago, BlindSeeker said:

I don't know any one who doesn't like thinking other people think their special or right....

Trump wants to be thought of as being the chosen one .As he said he is.

There is a big difference between wanting to be thought of as special and wanting to be thought of as being the only one who can deliver Israel.

“I kept Israel safe, remember that. I kept Israel safe,” he said in a video posted to Truth Social. “Nobody else will, nobody else can, and I know all of the players

 

Only God can make Israel safe.

[BlindSeeker]

52 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Why do you think I should read non biblical sources to learn biblical verses?

You claiming I'm making bold words from a position of ignorance is very hateful speech there.

I've said nothing hateful. Aren't you being a bit way overly hypersensitive there? What exposed nerve did I accidently touch?

Do you only read the bible? No commentaries, history books?  I find you question "Why do you think I should read non biblical sources to learn biblical verses" a bit odd. How is it you are missing the obvious? You live in the here and now, not then. Your culture is not their culture.

Let me ask you this, have you always been so absolutely right as a believer? Has your understanding always been so profoundly flawless and complete?

 

58 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

For one you have no idea what you are talking about .Your hate of other christians is very disturbing .Your hate for the Catholic church is very disturbing.

Brother, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not hateful, nor have I said anything even remotely as hateful as you have just spued out towards me. I can only conclude this fiery contention stems from your pride of knowing all things so completely and perfectly.

 

1 hour ago, Shilohsfoal said:

And your disregard for the word of God is a huge mistake.

Your horrific assessment of my love for God's word is confounding. With such little discourse and you're able to make such thorough of a conclusion....

Sorry, but your words only re-enforce the obvious, that you my friend are the one making a huge mistake stating I hate and disregard God's word. And you want people to embrace your words and position as sound when you speech is so void of grace?

 

1 hour ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Perhaps it's time you stop reading extra biblical sources and read what the prophets wrote about the man of sin.

Perhaps you should stop making such rash judgments of others with so little insight into their heart. Yours is betrayed and overly exposed by your own uncharitable speech. You leave me wondering which verse I should follow-

Proverbs 26:4 -  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
 Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

 

[BlindSeeker]

1 hour ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Trump wants to be thought of as being the chosen one .As he said he is.

There is a big difference between wanting to be thought of as special and wanting to be thought of as being the only one who can deliver Israel.

I know. 

But I am convince he too has been taken captive by his lust and pride. I fully believe Trump was approached a while ago, by the military or whoever, and a plan was presented him as he being the only one who could pull this off to take America back from the communists. Add to that all the false prophets and pseudo-Christian ministers around him, couple with the new agers behind him, how can such a vain person not begin to believe it? His ego has been fed from so many directions.

I absolutely view him as the greatest deception being presented to a moral, peace seeking, carnal world.

Even spirit-cooking Marina Abramovic' is behind Trump. Here's a quick link to something, but somewhere I once saw or listen to her referring to Trump as a light-bearer....

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a24109/marina-abramovic-interview/

[other one]

7 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

He is wrong.Daniel is the first person to have written about the man of sin who will exalt himself above all.

I could say that technically this is the seed of Satan spoken of in Genesis

[BlindSeeker]

7 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

What he said  is that Adso of Montier-en-Der is the first person to say what I'm saying.

He is wrong. Daniel is the first person to have written about the man of sin who will exalt himself above all.

Excuse me, but that's not what I said. Not even close. Try reading more slowly, and examining the things given for your consideration.

Daniel gave the prophecy, not the interpretation of it. How often did Daniel himself have to ask for understanding of what he was seeing or hearing? Did he not write faithfully about things he did not understand?

It is other men throughout history who have made all manner of interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies. Thus, what I said is that your interpretation (with which wholly I disagree [is that what really offends you?]), is very much in accord with what was possibly one of the first documented eschatological treatise put forth in defense of both Catholicism and the papacy, written by a French monk at the royal request of the queen of France. People, doctrines, positions of influence, and religious dominance were in question and being scrutinized.

Prior to that, there were indeed various interpretations among the various non-Catholics, but there was a basic harmony among them concerning Catholicism being heretical and the papacy a usurpation of authority contrary to scripture. Nearly all their eschatological position were contrary to both your interpretation and that of the monk. Simple fact.

I simply told you, and will say it again, that what you are believing is in my firm opinion very similar to that which the monk construed. And once more, he did so purely in defense the papacy to refute the eschatology of non-Catholics before the queen. Look it up. Why wouldn’t you?

The same misdirecting is also very much like what has happened because Scofield wrote his interpretations, which someone has placed side by side with Holy Writ in a "reference bible," (now being widely used by almost every seminary out there). This, I believe, and how can it do otherwise, steers people to erroneous conclusions, via his notes that say, "This is that." Has not the devil consistently labored to teach us all what to think, instead of how to think?

Now I am not saying Scofield wasn’t a man of God, but rather on many eschatological points it simply wasn’t “given to him to know.” For we all are given but a measure of both faith and grace whereby we speak one to another. Therefore, I give him much due respect for submitting them for peer review, much like we all should be doing here. But it seems to me, that just as the devil would have misused the body of Moses to an ungodly end, he has nonetheless managed to do so utilizing Scofield’s speculations to promote erroneous end-time theories.

Now, Peter said "this is that" under the anointing of the Holy Spirit concerning the outpouring on Pentecost, but Scofield, like so many, was simply trying to fit pieces of scripture together wherever they seemed to fit, but again, it simply wasn't "given to him to know the mysteries of the Kingdom" as they were "seal until the end," meaning the later days of the Gospel dispensation. Sadly though, many are still trying to interpret or figure out scripture the same way, or worse, accepting whatever they were taught.

For I have yet to meet a Christian anywhere who doesn't believe they were taught the truth, unless they truly humbled themselves and became both prayerful and critical students of God's word. That is why we must labor to understand that which was committed to the early church fathers, upon whom the burden of being faithful stewards of the prophets and apostles’ teachings and understanding fell.

[BlindSeeker]

1 hour ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Yes , [Admin edit of adverse content]

Well then, feel free to ignore me if it causes you to be so emotional. I can but say its not true. I do seek for clarification where there is vagueness. I do not know what is people's head when they say something, so I expect them to be willing to articulate their position when questioned. Also, I do expect questions to be answered and not ignored. I expect mutual respect and charity, even when opinions do not align. I read whatever is submitted to me, look up people's details in their comments (unless already informed).

But are we not all here search for the truth and to contend for the truth of the Gospel? Cannot that be done peacefully? Certainly, but only where pride has be abated and humility and charity prevail.

Do you think Barnabas went away with John Mark thinking Paul was hateful? Was Paul hateful when he confronted Peter when he was to be blamed? What allowed healing in all these situation? It was humility.

[Shilohsfoal]

5 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

Excuse me, but that's not what I said. Not even close. Try reading more slowly, and examining the things given for your consideration.

Daniel gave the prophecy, not the interpretation of it. How often did Daniel himself have to ask for understanding of what he was seeing or hearing? Did he not write faithfully about things he did not understand?

It is other men throughout history who have made all manner of interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies. Thus, what I said is that your interpretation (with which wholly I disagree [is that what really offends you?]), is very much in accord with what was possibly one of the first documented eschatological treatise put forth in defense of both Catholicism and the papacy, written by a French monk at the royal request of the queen of France. People, doctrines, positions of influence, and religious dominance were in question and being scrutinized.

Prior to that, there were indeed various interpretations among the various non-Catholics, but there was a basic harmony among them concerning Catholicism being heretical and the papacy a usurpation of authority contrary to scripture. Nearly all their eschatological position were contrary to both your interpretation and that of the monk. Simple fact.

I simply told you, and will say it again, that what you are believing is in my firm opinion very similar to that which the monk construed. And once more, he did so purely in defense the papacy to refute the eschatology of non-Catholics before the queen. Look it up. Why wouldn’t you?

The same misdirecting is also very much like what has happened because Scofield wrote his interpretations, which someone has placed side by side with Holy Writ in a "reference bible," (now being widely used by almost every seminary out there). This, I believe, and how can it do otherwise, steers people to erroneous conclusions, via his notes that say, "This is that." Has not the devil consistently labored to teach us all what to think, instead of how to think?

Now I am not saying Scofield wasn’t a man of God, but rather on many eschatological points it simply wasn’t “given to him to know.” For we all are given but a measure of both faith and grace whereby we speak one to another. Therefore, I give him much due respect for submitting them for peer review, much like we all should be doing here. But it seems to me, that just as the devil would have misused the body of Moses to an ungodly end, he has nonetheless managed to do so utilizing Scofield’s speculations to promote erroneous end-time theories.

Now, Peter said "this is that" under the anointing of the Holy Spirit concerning the outpouring on Pentecost, but Scofield, like so many, was simply trying to fit pieces of scripture together wherever they seemed to fit, but again, it simply wasn't "given to him to know the mysteries of the Kingdom" as they were "seal until the end," meaning the later days of the Gospel dispensation. Sadly though, many are still trying to interpret or figure out scripture the same way, or worse, accepting whatever they were taught.

For I have yet to meet a Christian anywhere who doesn't believe they were taught the truth, unless they truly humbled themselves and became both prayerful and critical students of God's word. That is why we must labor to understand that which was committed to the early church fathers, upon whom the burden of being faithful stewards of the prophets and apostles’ teachings and understanding fell.

What's your problem?

Daniel didn't say anything about the Catholic Church nor was he prophesying of it.Daniel was prophesying of the end times.The king of the north who exalts himself above all ,the persecution of the saints in Israel and the destruction of the middle east by the armed forces of the king of the north.

There's Nothing in there about the Catholic church or peoples interpretations which you seem to be stuck on.

This prophecy is an end times prophecy about a man who exalts himself above all.

Daniel 11

³⁶ And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

 

This is the same man who Paul said would exalt himself above all before the coming of Christ.

 

2 Thes 2

⁴ Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[Montana Marv]

On 3/27/2024 at 1:36 PM, Shilohsfoal said:

You reject my claim that the anointing of God is the holy spirit?

What is it that you believe the anointing of God is?

 

 

If this isn't the holy spirit of God being spoken of then do tell what you believe the anointing is.

 

No, I claim that being filled with the H.S. by no means makes one an expert, it makes no ones views superior to another's. No one has a higher position in the Body of Christ, as compared to another.  All are unique and God has given each one gifts.

Apparently those anointed one's (H.S. filled) in the Body of Christ still have disagreements.  Many do not believe in your views, many don't believe in my views.  Your outlandish claims by what others report as truth, is just that.  In the late 1970's Henry Kissinger's number was 666 and many thought he would become the A/C, the man of sin. He didn't.  Why should we believe that Trump is this same 666, or man of sin.  Kind of like date setting.

Anointing also means to put one into a leadership position, again also to anoint those who are sick among you with prayers and anoint their head with oil.  Saul was anointed King based on stature by the Jews via the Priests.  David was anointed King based on one having the heart of God by God via the Priests.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Michael37]

A good place to end this thread, which has become frayed.