Jesus Christ Forums

[Algol_Gotha]

First, let me tell you that I don't believe in Christ (I mean Christ the god, not Jesus the man), God or Lucifer/Satan, so I write this only as a curiosity.

I know some of you will be mad with this message, others will "curse" me (LOL!), but... whatever

Do as ye will.

If we use the code A=9, B=18 (2x9), C=27 (3x9), D=36 (4x9), ..., Z=234 (26x9), we get:

Jesus = Messiah = Lucifer = 666 !!!

- JESUS = J(90) + E(45) + S(171) + U(189) + S(171) = 666
- MESSIAH = M(117) + E(45) + S(171) + S(171) + I(81) + A(9) + H(72) = 666
- LUCIFER = L(108) + U(189) + C(27) + I(81) + F(54) + E(45) + R(162) = 666

If this isn't enough for you christians, try in hebrew:

Moshiakh ("Messiah") = 358 = Nakhash ("Serpent")

Spelling:
Moshiakh = mem(40) + shin(300) + yod(10) + cheth(8) = 358
Nakhash = nun(50) + cheth(8) + shin(300) = 358

Fortunately, Shatan ("Satan" in hebrew) is only 1 more than 358 (the Serpent Messiah).

If want me to spell it:
Shatan = shin(300) + teth(9) + nun(50) = 359 = 358 (Messiah-Serpent) +1.

Curious, isn't it?
So, isn't Jesus the Beast or what?!?!

Algol Gotha
(Osiris_Risen)
_________________
"Find yourself, discover God."

[Omega]

You can go on and on rambling of how many names =666

Try this: http://www.av1611.org/666/www_666.html

Actually the hebrew name of Jesus=888 which means perfection!
TADA!

666=18 ALSO, DUH!

Bill gates name=666, he might be the devil!
And by your calculation, many friends of mine are also the devil, wow!

BTW jesus is not jesus in hebrew that is the greek translation, go and study more. True Devil has got you hook, line and sinker

Oh and BTW, i am not mad at you and attempting to curse you, I leave it up to God at judgment day for you!

Your just digging your own pit thats all!

Finding out so many numerical values with mathematics, hmm...boring

Have a nice day!

Oh by the way golgotha and goliath of gath sound very like each other!
golgotha=place of skulls
even looks asf the skull of goliath is there!

David{my favorite old testament hero} slew goliath and cut his head off, have a nice day!

[/img]

[Algol_Gotha]

Hi Omega

[Algol_Gotha]

By the way, here is something more that might be of interest:

In the previous message, I showed that (using the code A=9, B=18, C=27, etc, Z=234) Jesus = Messiah = Lucifer = 666, right?

Now, what's the value of "Satan's"?

Let's see:
S(171) + A(9) + T(180) + A(9) + N(126) + S(171) = 666 !!!

WOW!

So...
Satan's Messiah is Lucifer-Jesus!
Or, if you wish: "666 666 is 666 666". LOL!

Ah!
Please don't forget that Lucifer and Jesus are exactly the same (according to several christians), because as you can see:

Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter 14:
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

The Revelation of Saint John the Devine, Chapter 22:
22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

[Remember that Lucifer means Light-Bearer and is a name of Venus, the "morning star"].

By the same token, Jesus and the Serpent are one!
Watch this:

The Fourth Book of Moses, called Numbers, Chapter 21:
21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

The Gospel according to Saint John, Chapter 3:
3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this enough?

(Remember that, as I've said before, I am *NOT* a christian *OR* a satanist or a devil worshipper, so this doesn't have any value, for me. It's just something 'curious'.)
_________________
"Find yourself, discover God."

[Omega]

[Algol_Gotha]

LOL!

Whatever...
You are free to think what you want

Be CøøL [[[]]]
Algol
_________________
"Find yourself, discover God."

[Omega]

Cheers!
Love you!

If you ever decide to have a change of heart!
http://www.freejesus.net/salvation.php

God Bless!

[Amadeus]

"son of the morning" is meant to show how great and angel Lucifer was before he rebelled. He was, like, God's right hand man.

Jesus and lucifer cannot be the same person, because God cannot send Himself to Hell.

[Algol_Gotha]

[beads]

Well, let list what we do know:

Fact #1
Jesus and Lucifer are not the same. Though both are identified with a somewhat similar name , they are not identified with the same name. Lucifer is called "son of the morning"; Jesus is called "bright and morning star". Not the same! Lucifer, in the Isaiah passage that has been quoted, has been shown to say things like "I will be like the Most High God." Jesus already is the Most High God, so if Jesus were Lucifer, it wouldn't make sense for him to say that.

Fact #2
Jesus and Satan are not the same. This is proven by the fact that the Bible calls Satan the father of lies among other things. We know that Jesus, being God, is completely holy and therefore cannot have any sin in him, thus could not possibly be the father of lies.

Fact #3
The Isaiah account is an account of the first sin ever commited by a created being. This first sin was commited by Lucifer, so we would be correct in calling him the father of sin. It follows that the father of sin would be synonymous with the father of lies (because, while his specific sin may have been pride, it cause him to speak lies - it was a lie that he could become like the Most High God).

So we know that

Jesus <> Lucifer
Jesus <> Satan
Lucifer = father of sin
Satan = father of lies
father of sin = father of lies

So by substitution

Lucifer = Satan

The fact that you've said this:

[Algol_Gotha]

[Amadeus]

I could be wrong about this, but in the original manuscripts, the name "Lucifer" was not included. I have heard that the name was added after a member of the Catholic clergy, named Lucifer, did some sort of atrocious thing (I don't remember what).


Therefore, your entire argument falls apart.

[Algol_Gotha]

[beads]

[kinkylogic]

is jesus the devil
the bilbe tells us (A)
what happend (B)


1a) the devil can only be in one place at a time
1b)jesus was only in one place at one time

2a) the devil can only do something if the lord allows it
2b)jesus wanted to heal and help the people and the lord was pleased with him

3a)the devil WILL temp you with lies ; (comandment number 1 :Thou shalt have no other gods before me)
3b) jesus asked his falowers to belive in him, said he was the son of god, and for their faith he offered them eternal life

4a) god has no face (2nd comandment :"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of [god}..."
4b) how many statues, crosses , and paintings with jesus have you seen .... my point

5a) comandment number four " "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
5b) the sabbath is on saturday (the end of the week) the christans holly day is on sunday (the Beginning of the week) the chirstans keep sunday holy

6a) the devil is basished for 1000 years at a time
6b) THE POPE said the the devil was banished by jesus and that the devil is no more

7a) the bible says that jesus was born when the sheperds watched their sheep at night. ("And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. Luke 2:89")
7b) the christans belive he was born on decmber 25 (note in israil it snows in decmber how do sheep get to the grass) remarkably at the same time as another old testament holiday

8a) god loves all his childern
8b) jesus's followers belived that jessus could love them back for he was a man (they did not belive that their lord loved them)

9a) jesus died for our sins
9b) a magical bunny comes to our houes and gives us little chocolate eggs every year

10a) the devil temped jesus to save his owen life
10b) jesus died and the devil was banished

[Alpha]

[(Omega)]

kinkylogic, your in the same league as the Pharisees in the days of Jesus:

[kinkylogic]

Im not saying that jesus was bad, evil or anything like that am just saying that it makes some sence that jesus was bolth the devil and jessus. (jesus was not the devil himself but the devil was resideing (or traped) with in him)

just like in real life where you are presented constantly choices bolth good and evil but with jessus it was to a more of an extreme

p.s. plz try and aruge the points that i make so i can aruge the points that you make because we wont get any wher running around in circles. (thanks Alpha Moderator but plz try and explane a littel more so i can read the part of the text you are refering to, im sorry i didnt post refernces but i will in future posts)

[(Omega)]

[kinkylogic]

i have given not one, not two, but 10 separat examples and no one has refuted any of them, so; so far my logic has been deemed corect. if you disagree would you plz give a valid argument of why you disagree with any of ten points that i have made.

[Truth Seeker-Joshua]

Peace all

[Alpha]

[kinkylogic]

"thy seed and her seed"

the 1st seed is refering to the devils reproductive instrument (for simplicity's sake like refer to it as sperm) and the 2nd seed is refering to that of a womens, her egg (which has been made by god to stop the devil).
every man has a part of a women in him his X jeen (from his mother) and, then they have Y jeen (from his father) while women have have 2 X's, one from her father and one from her mother; however, these are not the only two posablitys, their is another, a two Y jeen being a purely male jeen structur, im not talking about the gendic disablity wher some has 3 differnt jeens although it is vary plausible that some one would have to have this disablity (or maby even in their family blood line) in order to give birth to a child of two a Y jeens structur. it could then be assusmed that the devil would be man made with out the "enmities" if one were to take the sperrm of a man and fruetlize an man made egg that has had its chromosomes from of another mans sperm.

Romans 1:22-23 (New International Version)"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man"

the Douay-Rheims Bible Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

[Endurance]

It's funny to me how christains can be just as worldly as non-christian. I'm seeing Christians being nasty and hateful to unbelievers who in return are turning the other cheek. I thought the followers of Christ were the persecuted and not the persecutors. It seems that these days being a Christian is honoring Christ with the lips, but still living and being worldly. It's a shame. but hey, who wants to admit their wrongs. It's funny we seem to say that no one is perfect but God and that we are all sinners. Yet when we are rebuked for sin, we get defensive in attempts to justify ourselves as if we are not sinners. We say one thing, but do the complete opposite. This is hypocrisy and blindness. Pray for this site, all of us need prayer because we have all been acting as worldly as any other men regardless of religion affiliation or belief. To those who think they have not been acting worldly, feel free to view yourself however you wish, but you just may already have been marked by the beast. Blindness is very decietful as is the heart. Jer 17:7

With Love,
The Persecuted...
_________________
There is no darkness in light

[Aineo]

kinkylogic, the Douay-Rheims is an English translation of Jerome's Vulgate. Jerome took a few liberties with his translation of the Vulgate from the Septuagint. The modern English Catholic Bible reads:

[kinkylogic]

the hebrew language is vary indecive eg the word vrgin also means young and when it said "and jesus walked on water" could also read "and jesus walked beside water" but the bible wouldnt make much sence if ether of the later things happend...... im just saying that it makes sense that jesus was the fail safe to stop the devil.

and this is the closest youll get to an english tranlation of genesis 3:15
Genesis 3:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
"and enmity I put between thee [and] the woman, [and] between thy seed [and] her seed; he doth bruise thee -- the head, [and] thou dost bruise him -- the heel"


god bless
james 1:11
"for the sun did rise with the burning heat, and did wither the grass, and the flower of it fell, and the grace of its appearance did perish, so also the rich in his way shall fade away"

[kinkylogic]

Throughout history philosophers have been trying to define knowledge, Of the necessary conditions for knowledge, Plato, Locke and other philosophers have identified a demonstrative condition, which necessitates that to truly possess knowledge of something, one must be able to explain or demonstrate (at least to oneself) how one’s reasons justify a particular belief.1
In the Theaetetus, Plato’s character Socrates begins with a claim of what knowledge is not: “[w]hen... any one forms the true opinion of anything without rational explanation, you may say that his mind is truly exercised, but has no knowledge; for he who cannot give and receive a reason for a thing, has no knowledge of that thing” (Moser and Vandernat 49). It logically follows that “when he adds rational explanation, then, he is perfected in knowledge” (49). Explanation is required for knowledge because to describe or define something separates one thing from another. Plato ends with Socrates’ statement that to possess knowledge requires true opinion as well as rational explanation (49). The demonstrative condition of knowledge requires that all of the factors needed for a particular belief to be epistemically justified for a person must be cognitively accessible to that person.
In the Meno, Plato provides a more detailed explanation of why demonstration is a necessary condition for knowledge. Socrates differentiates knowledge from true opinion: a man who possesses true opinion possesses only a correct opinion, while someone who possesses knowledge must know the truth of the matter. An example provided is that of a guide to Larisa, who “had a right opinion about the way, but had never been and did not know” (Socrates 32). Because the man would possess the right opinion of the way to Larisa he would be just as good a guide as a man who possessed actual knowledge of the way. Socrates uses this evidence to finish his explanation for why knowledge requires not only that:
S knows that P
IFF
i) P is true
and
ii) S is sure that P is true
but also that
3) S must also have the right to know P (or be able to demonstrate that P)2

Plato summarizes and completes the discussion of true opinion versus knowledge, stating that:
“while [true opinions] abide with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and... are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause... And this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a chain” (Socrates 33).

Locke identifies demonstrative knowledge, saying that though agreement between thoughts or ideas may not always be intuitively blatant, it is possible that one may find connections via intermediate ideas, which one is led to by reason.3 “Those intervening ideas which serve to show the agreement of any two others, are called proofs: and where the agreement and disagreement is by this means plainly and clearly perceived, it is called demonstration; it being shown to the understanding” (Moser and Vandernat 139).
Arguably, person S needs not be able to demonstrate that P is true so long as someone demonstrates to S that P is true. This is highly debatable. Whether or not one can successfully demonstrate to oneself that P is true during a certain time period may mean that one only possesses the knowledge of P during the time in which one may demonstrate that it is true. This means that if someone demonstrates to S that P is true, but then S cannot demonstrate it themself, they no longer possess the knowledge of P, but only a true opinion of P. This would seem to show that for S to know P, S must always be capable of demonstrating P to themself.4
Since the demonstrative condition is thus far defined as a condition stating that for a person to possess knowledge, and not just true opinion, they must be able to demonstrate5 that they are justified in holding a certain belief through reason, the question of what is then excluded from the new definition of knowledge must be raised.6 The demonstrative condition excludes many types of purported “knowledge”: the first is true opinion, which is reached by luck or chance, since it cannot be demonstrated to be true by the person who has reached the conclusion by such methods; second is true opinion based on inference which cannot be demonstrated with certainty; third is abductive claims which are only inference to the best explanation; fourth is knowledge arising from experience as it consists only of belief or faith (according to Locke, and given our lack of absolute certainty of the material world’s existence we must agree); fifth type of “knowledge” excluded includes common sense or supposedly general truths; a sixth and final kind of knowledge that would be excluded would be second-hand knowledge which has been told to someone, since that person has no way of demonstrating it.
Is the demonstrative condition for knowledge too strong or not? I would argue that the line of what knowledge is and is not is a very fine one to draw, and is likely subject to opinion. It may be fair to say that we do seem to know a majority of the things we experience7, and many of our inferences may be correct, but this still makes them only true opinions. The word “know” and the phrase “to know with certainty” seem to be used so loosely in common language that they are not really true to their definitions. Although I am tempted to agree and sympathize with those who find the demonstrative condition to be too restrictive on the definition of knowledge, Plato is extremely convincing in his differentiation of true opinion from knowledge, and I think it is very difficult, if not impossible to disagree with him on the matter. One may say that (for the sake of every day usage) there are varying levels of knowledge, and that knowledge which does not meet the demonstrative condition is simply a lower class of knowledge.8
1 Demonstrative evidence, defined as a legal term may shed some light on its philosophical counterpart, as it consists of objects that may be seen or heard to give a jury a better understanding to a particular person’s argument (demonstrative evidence 1); however, there is more to the philosophical demonstrative requirement than just seeing something concerning knowledge.

2 (Moser and Vandernat 263).

3 Locke identifies four types of knowledge, one of them being demonstrative.

4 One possible objection to this may be that the argument is reduced to triviality, since one cannot constantly be in a state of demonstrating any given fact to oneself or to others, which means that according to the argument given, that one only truly possesses knowledge of something when they are in the act of demonstrating that given fact to oneself or others.

5 At least to themselves

6 Previously, from conditions (1) and (2), false opinions and non-belief or uncertain beliefs must be rejected from being knowledge. (1) could exclude experimental/scientific results because they are not certain, but this depends upon how seriously the condition is taken: does 99.9% certainty constitute “P is true”? I would venture to say it does not.

7 Or seem to experience; we are uncertain as to whether the world really is as we perceive it. See Berkeley’s A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge with regard to this.

8 I could accept this as a common on general definition, but not as a philosophical one. As a philosophical definition, knowledge consists of logic such as that of validly applied deduction, which should provide a person with absolute certainty if they have properly reduced all other options as to the truth of the matter.


this essay is not mine but prorty of kevin freedmen