EricJulien
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2017
- Messages
- 335
Don't pretend I didn't complete my definition of the word 'fact' in my other post.And you tell others they have missed the point. Ha. Yer a barrel o' laughs.
Last edited:
Don't pretend I didn't complete my definition of the word 'fact' in my other post.And you tell others they have missed the point. Ha. Yer a barrel o' laughs.
It seems that you missed the point.
BOTH Daniel and John (and other prophets) didn't understand the prophetic visions they were showed! BOTH even received complementary explanations from the angel speaking to them (in the texts). They just reported in their ORDERED book what they saw, heard and felt, and the said explanations (the Book of Revelation is the ONLY book in the New Testament asked by Christ to be written).
They had not the least idea that these visions were about UK!
I, living in the modern times, say that (aliens' and British monarchy's involvement) thanks to a deep and thorough analysis of THEIR books, that is to say of the angels' and Christ's PROPHECIES, word SPECIFICALLY used by Christ himself, UNLIKE the Norse poems for example, and many other supposed visions.
But to know all of this you must read their books first.
Daniel, John, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zechariah and so many prophets were NOT obsessed by anything but by respecting to the least weird detail what they received, WITHOUT ANY PERSONAL BIAS OR INTERPRETATION, unlike many books of the Bible. It is because those prophecies are SO STRANGE, in terms of symbols and figures and events, and NEVERTHELESS MATCHING EACH OTHER, that they are SO PRECIOUS!
One cannot accuse anyone to have changed these prophecies to make them clearer to just match someone's worldview. The very fact that these prophecies are expressed in such so complex and cryptic way makes them even truer and reliable, especially when they TOTALLY and EVENTUALLY match the factual history!
At last, the British monarchy is a means for God to deploy His Plan, not the Plan itself, like the British (BRIT - ISH = man of covenant) People is the modern Tribe of Ephraim having received the birthright, NOT the birthright itself, since Great Britain is JUST where the true Man of Covenant comes to achieve God's Plan.
What matters is that NO ONE expects Christ and the Two Witnesses to come in the British monarchy (except myself for I am directly involved) DESPITE all is perfectly announced as such. The problem only comes from the numerous and profound prejudices and preconceptions of the modern peoples' mindsets. Particularly well proved here, as in many other forums.
See, the problem is that your definition of the word fact is essentially irrelevant. It is all but meaningless. By your definition, pretty much anything can be "proven" to be a fact. When you start with a belief and "check" it out as your sort of "fact", anything is possible. You are not alone. There are plenty of others who don't get it. That still does not make any of your proclamations correct. Does not change the real meaning of the word fact.Don't pretend I didn't completed my definition of the word 'fact' in my other post.
No, I perfectly got the point about your previous post. Now you totally change your subject, i.e. the controversial historical Jesus. That also could be debated (there are plenty of contextual evidences) but I first want to stick on the topic.I think you're missing the point.
First of all, I'd like to see the actual historical evidence of Jesus. This is only fair seeing as you're trawling heavily through the ginger aspects of our monarchy to back up your claims.
When I say Henry VIII doesn't look like a bear, that's because he is a man. Other totemic animals may apply - even oranges and tennis given a push, but surely in modern times Russia is the Bear?
Also. Why does God need a prophecy anyway? Apparently He created it all. It'll work out according to His will.
Think you can work his plan out? You have that sort of brain?
Please, don't ridicule yourself that way. Of course we talk about something that really happened, or someone that really existed, to define a fact, that's why I added all the possible definitions. And the Bible prophecies AS explained in my book PERFECTLY fit the reality of history.See, the problem is that your definition of the word fact is essentially irrelevant. It is all but meaningless. By your definition, pretty much anything can be "proven" to be a fact. When you start with a belief and "check" it out as your sort of "fact", anything is possible. You are not alone. There are plenty of others who don't get it. That still does not make any of your proclamations correct. Does not change the real meaning of the word fact.
The Bible, Star Trek, the Arthur legends, and other such things are allegorical constructs. Fiction. Mythology. They have their place, of course. They all can be useful in various ways. But they are not factually real. The only scholars who accept the Bible as "history" are the ones who started out believing it to be so. No objective facts prove the stories to have actually happened. If you want to believe it, fine. If you want to make claims about factual reality, they have to be backed up by more than tortured history, pretty pictures (and some of the other kind), and other wild claims. That is why no one is taking you seriously.
Not important enough to be mentioned in the Bible prophecies. Her eyes are not that weird when compared to real hydribs.Where does Princess Beatrice fit into all of this? She has freakishly huge eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if she had some alien DNA.
As explained below, the 'centaurs' are rather a coded name for the four angels (the coming and new William, Catherine, George and Charlotte) and their aliens / angels of God army:I'm looking forward to seeing real live Centaurs.
If you see those 'centaurs' from earth I will cry for your fate.I'm looking forward to seeing real live Centaurs.
The Bible prophecy (third subdued king) announces a boy. We haven't chosen his name yet. Maybe Arthur, Richard or John.Kate and William are having another baby next April. Can you predict the sex and name of the child?