The Son is both ancestral to, and eternal with, the Father. Your analytical explanation  demonstrates your limitations of understanding, not Gods limitation of creation.

Jesus, God the Son incarnate,  is both  the Father of this creation and the Son of the Universal Father of ALL creation and creators.

Man is actually a grandson.

The problem is…[Read more]

The Son is both ancestral to, and eternal with, the Father. Your analytical explanation  demonstrates your limitations of understanding, not Gods limitation of creation.

Jesus, God the Son incarnate,  is both  the Father of this creation and the Son of the Universal Father of ALL creation and creators.

Man is actually a grandson.

The problem is…[Read more]

The Son is both ancestral to, and eternal with, the Father. Your analytical explanation  demonstrates your limitations of understanding, not Gods limitation of creation.

Jesus, God the Son incarnate,  is both  the Father of this creation and the Son of the Universal Father of ALL creation and creators.

Man is actually a grandson.

The problem is…[Read more]

Hello

How did I do that? See image below:

Hello

How did I do that? See image below:

Hello

How did I do that? See image below:

Paste code in text mode, not visual mode.

Visual mode will output the code as text. Text mode will render the code.

Paste code in text mode, not visual mode.

Paste that code in text mode, not visual mode.

Here goes.

thji hhhhh jjjjjjjj

testing

It’s ok, Ed just showed me that you can teach an old dog new tricks,
except this trick is old. I thought it would be a new trick!

It’s ok, Ed just showed me that you can teach an old dog new tricks,
except this trick is old. I thought it would be a new trick!

Interesting video. Finished part 1 which talks about the importance of the eastern leg of the Roman Empire.

Part 2 is about the Assyrian spoken of in prophecy and Nimrod who also came from the same area. Assyria is Syria and Iraq I think. Will have to watch it tomorrow. Getting late now.

Interesting video. Finished part 1 which talks about the importance of the eastern leg of the Roman Empire.

Part 2 is about the Assyrian and Nimrod whgo also came from there. Assyria is Syria and Iraq I think.

Just throwing this one in here. Haven’t seen it yet, but will watch it now.

To prove this, Rome was mentioned as the “King of the North” in Daniel. A big clue.

People overlook that the Roman Empire had an eastern leg and concentrate entirely on the western leg.

There are a number of theories as to who the King of the North is. But history tells us something like this:

Alexander the Great’s kingdom was divided into four…[Read more]

There are a number of theories as to who the King of the North is. One is as follows:

Alexander the Great, whose kingdom after his death was divided into four parts.

Seleucus I – who began the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, from Turkey to India.
Cassander – who took over Macedonia (Greece).
Lysimachus – who took Thracia (between Greece and…[Read more]

There are a number of theories as to who the King of the North is. One is as follows:

Alexander the Great, whose kingdom after his death was divided into four parts.

Seleucus I – who began the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, from Turkey to India.
Cassander – who took over Macedonia (Greece).
Lysimachus – who took Thracia (between Greece and…[Read more]

T8
It didn’t say that Rome had to be conquered. Rome was the ruling empire and finished it’s rule where the legs finished (according to the image in Daniel)
The next empire starts at the feet which is mixed iron and clay. It came out of Rome, which is why it has iron in it still.
It’s from the Roman lineage, not Otterman.
The British empire was t…

[Read more]

I will need to look into the tree thing because I am not aware of it.

the six head cannot be anything other than ROME ,the 7 th is the empire that follows and it could be the british empire,

including all the western world ,

the 8th is yet to come ,my understanding

Yes Rome is the sixth. But who conquered Rome? It was not the British…[Read more]

Gene.

We have free will.

If you choose the opposing view, then you demonstrate free will.

If you do not have the ability to freely choose the opposing view, then that means you believe that there is free will.

Either way, we have free will.

Checkmate!

Gene.

We have free will.

If you do not have the ability to freely choose the opposing view, then that means I am right.

If you choose the opposing view, I am still right.

Either way, we have free will.

Checkmate.

I CHOOSE not to believe Gene and for good reason.

Why is he trying to convince me I do not have free will. I would need to CHOOSE his belief that we do not have free will.

This is the funniest part of this discussion. He relies on there being free will so we can CHOOSE to believe his view.

lol.