THE SIGN OF THE BEAST - All the bears do use their right hand

Common Sense is an access for those who stand long.1. Distinction between Church(I) and Church(ii).Church (I) - This word was written in the Vulgate in order to mean "the collective body/ an organized group of person"
: a collective body : GROUP
: a cooperative unit or organization; specifically : COLLECTIVE FARMTherefore, Church(I) was a word used to mean "the organized collective" and not "The representative body of any religion".Church (II) - the institution.
: a building for public and especially Christian worship
: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
: a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
: a public divine worship
: the clerical profession

​

statement: ..the Holy Spirit would guide and protect the Church with Truth and Light.. - Are you referring to Church (I)/which are the persons alone, or to the Church which is sap upon seven hills and is called Religion and is called Sancta Mother Instituted Church(DENOMINATION)?

​

The common sense is called "intelligence/knowledge/understanding" and the common sense is saying:

​

"There is a difference between the word "church(I)" used two thousand years ago to mean "a collectivity of persons" and the word "church(II)" which means INSTITUTION/DENOMINATION/RELIGION and is used today by the same institutions who like to say that they are the persons of the true church.

​

the statement: ..I would never have looked into the Church otherwise if I hadnt started investigating some of your claims..

​

Which church you're talking about, the collective of persons/those who loves with all their understanding?, or the institution called religion/belief/denomination??

​

*******Zsafira

​

This message has been edited by Zsafira, 01-08-2005 22:38 AM

​

This message has been edited by Zsafira, 01-08-2005 22:41 AM

sorry oops.This message has been edited by Ricka, 01-10-2005 21:15 AM

Zsafira,
I am happy that you enjoyed my signature and felt a need to comment on it.
There is no "church I" and "church II". Youre arguements are fruitless and sadly ridiculous.
There is only one Church, the Church are the people. The Church is the body of Christ. You, me, everyone is part of the Church, whether you are aware of it or not, whether you accept it or not. You are a created person made by God, born and therfore part of Christ's Church. Oh, you may refuse to be a part of Christ's Church, but that is not the point I am making here (and that is another topic). You are part of the Church, Laura is too. Yet you both refuse to see the truth taught in the Church. All either of you see is 'this man', or 'that man', or a building or this or that organization and YOU pass judgement. And that is where you have failed. You MUST see man, for man is the key. Mankind, all of mankind, is created by God. And each man is a cell in the Body of Christ who is the Church. Just as a family may have children who may refuse to acknowledge that they are members of that family, that doesnt change the fact that you are both still members of the Church.
Man is made in the image of God and therefore good, for nothing created by God is bad. Please understand then that there are no bad humans created. And do not take that last sentence out of context. God does not create bad humans, yet we are born into original sin. Therefore, man does have the capability to sin, yet he is called to be holy.
If we choose to follow God, then we are given certain graces or gifts to help us, and for us to help others, as God intended. For God created man as a social being, and man cannot exist without society.
We can refuse God, but then we also would refuse His grace and gifts. When we sin, it is the same as turning our backs on God, and therefore lose sanctifying grace. By repentance, we are able to receive grace once again, like a bath cleanses the body-confession cleanses the soul. But this is not a reason to abitrarily sin. Discernment must be used accordingly to understand that one cannot knowingly continue to sin and then turn around again and again and say, "Gee, I can sin all I want and God will always forgive me, cause he loves me." It just doesnt work like that. You must want (as in work ceaselessly) to be holy and strive for holiness always. We are to work to become holy, like Christ, to put on the shield of armor and truth, pray for guidance, strength, comfort, faith, hope, charity, and forgiveness and all of the wonderful gifts that Our Father in Heaven has been so gracious to give to us.Truth is love, and love is not necessarily kindness...LOVE IS TRUTH, and sometimes the Truth hurts very much. Love is a virtue, but love often is manipulated to lure the innocent. But I joyfully accept God's truth, even if it hurts my feelings.. than accept some made up fantasy like yours in an attempt to be kind to make me feel like if I simply do this or that, pray this way or that,switch this word for that word and 'see' some sort of "new"(as in make-believe) religious form of thought, then I will be fine in the sight of your fantasy. God is never wrong, yet there are men (and especially you brother) who have constantly felt that he could do better without Him, and lie like crazy to re-invent God in man's image. And again, do not take that last sentence out of context. Because we are all sinners, man does and can lie, as Laura stated, but to simply quote that particular part of a verse as an answer and refuse to see truth is ridiculous. In reference to her comment in her last post, she and you only prove you are both very far from the truth.Her words, taught by you..."Man is a liar".Romans 2:3-5
3- What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4- By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged." 5- But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say?Laura, through your teaching, sadly takes this passage all too literally, and far out of context. The emphasis in saying this is making it clear that even though the beings God created are full of sin, God Himself is not. God will always remain true in a world full of sin, unwavering though the word of man may fail. What this passage is saying is a generalization, not literally saying all men are liars (though all men with original sin are bound to tell a lie at some point). God's qualities are in no correlation with our own, and though we are sinful, changing beings, he remains perfect and constant.By way of the Greek Lexicon, we find that the greek word here for "liar" is yeuvsth, transliterated as pseustes. it can have the following meanings:1. a liar
2. one who breaks faith
3. a false and faithless manNRS: By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, "So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging."
RSV: By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged."
DRV: But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV: God forbid *: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
NAS: May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."from the meanings of the word, as well as the context of the verse, then we see that man is a liar not so much because he tells lies but because he is not filled with truth--as God is. That is the point of this verse. Let us see it again, in context:Rom 3:1-10 (KJV)
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;What we have here is a hypothetical dialogue between a Jew and Paul. the Jew is trying to claim that, since he is of God's chosen people, he can sin without this being accredited to him as unrighteousness and he can also claim that he is better than the Gentile. He claims this also because, if the justice and mercy of God is revealed thru his sin, how can he be found erroneous? What Paul says in reply is that, while God is indeed forever faithful and true despite our sin, the Jew must still see his sin as having a negative consequence and that he must not elevate himself above the Gentile. Afterall, "for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).That is the context of verse 3, and you both must understand this verse as it exists within this context. If you strip it from its context then you will only come to apply it in ways it was not intended, as you and obviously,Laura have done.And how do we know that this is truth ? It has been taught by the Church, which is the body of Christ, for 2000 years, passed down, preserved, sanctified and endured.Peace to you brother.
RickaThis message has been edited by Ricka, 01-10-2005 21:11 AMThis message has been edited by Ricka, 01-10-2005 21:18 AMThis message has been edited by Ricka, 01-10-2005 21:21 AM

---

Common sense is a marvelous gift...pity it's so rare.

When the Lamb said to Petrus (Peter): upon this stone I will build my Church (Jerrutzsalem), the means: upon that same type of stone. Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : English

Through the gothic places polished and darkened you may choose the Holy Cross in case you choose to receive the sign on your forehead by the right hand.And whoever receives the sign on the forehead by the right hand does receive the Mistery of the Cross at one time as well. It’s been a Mistery because the Cross becomes eclipsed for those who choose it, and it’s eclipsed because the nature of its mistery is that the cross remains partially enlightened and partially darkened.The light part of it is that you and you alone do choose to receive it on the forehead by the right hand.The darkened part is that wnen you choose it, you’re choosing that that was already chosen to you. Chosen by the angels who bring the sword, and established by the Most High Who wants to give re’Legion for those who love re’Legion.It’s like a sabbath that you pray and forget that the words spoken in the whole sabbath was already written for you to pray and you become simply part of a program, programmed by the Matrix, whose code name has beenSancta Matrix Prostituta Gtica Babilonica Romanesca.*******ZsafiraThis message has been edited by Zsafira, 01-11-2005 13:19 AM

The term 'image of the beast' also means 'the doctrinal image' of everything that is not YHWH nor human either: a doctrine, a statute, rule over rule, and everything goes beyond the pure word of Scripture alone;
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : English

Hi,With regard to salvation, the Word says 'I receive not testimony from man..' because salvation is individual, not collective.Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : English

Hi,the sign of the Lamb --imposition of hands-- is the maximum gathering in the approach between both hands,but the sign of the Roman cross is the maximum distance between them.

quote:

---

Is there any bear that uses its left hand to make any intimidating sign?
All the bears do use their right hand alone to make any intimidating sign?

​

The beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his hands --or feet-- were as the feet of a bear, and its mouth as the mouth of a lion.

​

And causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a sign with the right hand, on their foreheads.

​

beast -- doctrine
like a leopard -- the doctrine has a dexter agility to devour the understanding of the sheep who doesn't listen to the voice of the annointed lamb

​

mouth of a lion -- its power of communication; the doctrine owns the best speakers, microphones, radio stations, sats...

​

hands [or feet] of bear -- In order for the bear to intimidate, it always use its right hand to make its signs and advices, never the left one. The obscure doctrine --scarlet beast-- uses the right hand to make its sign in one's forehead

---