Beyonce JayZ Obama and Illuminati

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The whole moon thing is interesting..I think one of two things really happened. 1. We simply did not go but faked it to show that we could beat the Russians. 2. We landed or attempted to but were told by these "aliens" to not come back. As i said i tend to go with the first but who knows? Concerning you views on the Antichrist...you sound like a Preterists are you a Preterist?

I’ve read a few books on the moon landing hoax. They faked a lot of the photos and films and the first missions were probably faked. However, some of the later mission films look genuine. I’m not sure about the radiation, but you’d wonder why they have never gone out from earth orbit in 40 years… probably because they can’t. I don’t believe the stories about aliens, but I think it’s possible that people went to the moon in the distant past, and that goes against the evolutionary paradigm, so they have to cover up any evidence of that.
I’m not a preterist. I have written off revelation, as a product of its time. It’s an anti-roman composition, in the apocalyptic genre. It’s not for our day or the future. I believe what it says in Deuteronomy, when it says that if any prophesy doesn’t happen, then that prophet has not spoken of God, and should be disregarded, and considered to be false. The same goes for Daniel, which made a prediction about Antiochus which didn’t happen. That is very clear to me.

 

[Grappler]

I’ve read a few books on the moon landing hoax. They faked a lot of the photos and films and the first missions were probably faked. However, some of the later mission films look genuine. I’m not sure about the radiation, but you’d wonder why they have never gone out from earth orbit in 40 years… probably because they can’t. I don’t believe the stories about aliens, but I think it’s possible that people went to the moon in the distant past, and that goes against the evolutionary paradigm, so they have to cover up any evidence of that.
I’m not a preterist. I have written off revelation, as a product of its time. It’s an anti-roman composition, in the apocalyptic genre. It’s not for our day or the future. I believe what it says in Deuteronomy, when it says that if any prophesy doesn’t happen, then that prophet has not spoken of God, and should be disregarded, and considered to be false. The same goes for Daniel, which made a prediction about Antiochus which didn’t happen. That is very clear to me.

I have read where the Tower of Babel story about building a tower to the heavens was not really about building a big tall building that touched the sky but actually it was an attempt by man to build a "stargate" to the heavens...such as the moon. So you don't believe John got Revelation right?? wow...i sure hope he got the gospel of John right it is probably my favorite book of the bible. Anyways i can't right off Revelation as you do....i definitly don't look at as book that should take precedence over the Gospels or the writings of Paul per say but i still think we can learn much from it and i still believe there is some prophecy in it yet to be fullfilled...i guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I have read where the Tower of Babel story about building a tower to the heavens was not really about building a big tall building that touched the sky but actually it was an attempt by man to build a "stargate" to the heavens...such as the moon. So you don't believe John got Revelation right?? wow...i sure hope he got the gospel of John right it is probably my favorite book of the bible. Anyways i can't right off Revelation as you do....i definitly don't look at as book that should take precedence over the Gospels or the writings of Paul per say but i still think we can learn much from it and i still believe there is some prophecy in it yet to be fullfilled...i guess we will just have to wait and see.

i am very fond of john's gospel, but i don't believe that revelation was written by john, who wrote the gospel. i think that rev was actually written by a number of non-christian jews, after the destruction of the temple in 70ad.
the book or books were later christianized, added to and the letters added. 'john' was probably someone called 'john the presbeter', a semi-christian opposed to paul, who was in patmos like it says. if you read revelation carefully, and critically from beginning to end, you can see that it is at odds with both paul, and jesus himself. jesus loved children, yet the figure in revelation (whoever that is) says that he will kill jezebel's children... read it and check. that's just for a start.
i think the tower of babel, is not specified as being before the flood. it is dropped into the text. people just assume that it is after the flood. i think it is a memory of the building of a major ziggurat in sumer, by the al ubaid civilisation, that was before sumeria. it says that the people came from the east of sumeria; persia.. and i think this might show a very ancient memory of the origins of the al ubaid people.
i was reading about leonard whooly and his excavations at ur. he discovered a flood deposit which was 400 miles x 100 miles. that in my opinion is the actual biblical flood. and it goes down to the al ubaid civ, which was the first settlement in that region.
i'm not so sure about ancient human tech, as they would find evidence of it, under the sea.. it's megalithic but no high tech. i think it might be the sons of god as recorded in the bible, angels, whether good or bad i don't know. i think that they were doing the high tech stuff, and were considered to be gods.

 

[David Brider]

I’ve read a few books on the moon landing hoax. They faked a lot of the photos and films and the first missions were probably faked.

What makes you think that?

 

[Grappler]

i am very fond of john's gospel, but i don't believe that revelation was written by john, who wrote the gospel. i think that rev was actually written by a number of non-christian jews, after the destruction of the temple in 70ad.
the book or books were later christianized, added to and the letters added. 'john' was probably someone called 'john the presbeter', a semi-christian opposed to paul, who was in patmos like it says. if you read revelation carefully, and critically from beginning to end, you can see that it is at odds with both paul, and jesus himself. jesus loved children, yet the figure in revelation (whoever that is) says that he will kill jezebel's children... read it and check. that's just for a start.
i think the tower of babel, is not specified as being before the flood. it is dropped into the text. people just assume that it is after the flood. i think it is a memory of the building of a major ziggurat in sumer, by the al ubaid civilisation, that was before sumeria. it says that the people came from the east of sumeria; persia.. and i think this might show a very ancient memory of the origins of the al ubaid people.
i was reading about leonard whooly and his excavations at ur. he discovered a flood deposit which was 400 miles x 100 miles. that in my opinion is the actual biblical flood. and it goes down to the al ubaid civ, which was the first settlement in that region.
i'm not so sure about ancient human tech, as they would find evidence of it, under the sea.. it's megalithic but no high tech. i think it might be the sons of god as recorded in the bible, angels, whether good or bad i don't know. i think that they were doing the high tech stuff, and were considered to be gods.

What you say about Revelation is possible. It does seem to go against some of what Jesus said. Jesus never mentioned some kind of Milleniell. Kingdom and then a short period of Satan again being let loose to deceive once again...Jesus seemed to imply that once he came back he was going to seperate the righteous from the unrighteous...no mention of somekind of season where Satan is going to be once again set free as Revelation says. But the prophecy of the mark of the beast and the implications of a one-world government really do interest me because we can see that today in the current geo-political system of the world. There is this drive by many leaders today towards a one-world government. The goal of Communism is a one-world government. The goals of the Zionists is a world alliance of all nations. Like i said i don't give precedence to Revelation over the other books of the New Testament but i do think there are prophecies within its pages that apply to the end of this age before our Lord Jesus returns.

 

[JuJube]

Sometimes when people are under the influence of the illuminati they don't know it.

You got it...and most people dont want to know either cause that would disrupt their little world.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

What you say about Revelation is possible. It does seem to go against some of what Jesus said. Jesus never mentioned some kind of Milleniell. Kingdom and then a short period of Satan again being let loose to deceive once again...Jesus seemed to imply that once he came back he was going to seperate the righteous from the unrighteous...no mention of somekind of season where Satan is going to be once again set free as Revelation says. But the prophecy of the mark of the beast and the implications of a one-world government really do interest me because we can see that today in the current geo-political system of the world. There is this drive by many leaders today towards a one-world government. The goal of Communism is a one-world government. The goals of the Zionists is a world alliance of all nations. Like i said i don't give precedence to Revelation over the other books of the New Testament but i do think there are prophecies within its pages that apply to the end of this age before our Lord Jesus returns.

there is no millennium in the gospels; i checked. it is the invention of the jews of the intertestament period. the ideas presented in revelation are absurd to me.. satan being released after 1000 years.. why? complicated reasoning by the composers of rev. i agree.. jesus returns and no messing about, jesus say.. and then the end shall come.. if i remember right.

regarding the mark of the beast. i think that is due to 'inculturation'.. we are used to the idea, i think it is possibly tatoos used in the roman period, or it might just be the evil opposite to god's mark on the forehead and hand; well known to jews, even to this day.

i dont know where it says anything about a world govermnent i rev.. he shall' is talking about a roman emperor, a prediction which never happened.
i think that the occult make much use of revelation, the 666 and all that kabbalistic numerology used in revelation, the book is full of number symbols that have no real meaning. the 144000 is a numerical symbol, for a literal number of jewish virgins, the writer of rev didn't like women, as he says 'not
defiled by women... i dont think he had any love for anyone, and he detested the romans.

 

[tulc]

You got it...and most people dont want to know either cause that would disrupt their little world.

OR they aren't actually under the influence of an organization that no one has presented evidence even exists.
tulc(finds it's hard for people to be "unknowingly influenced" by other peoples myths)

 

[tulc]

Satan knows how to use music... They are prophets of Satan whether they realize it or not... People who listen to their music get the message. When people subject themselves to that music they are listening to a sermon from an unclean spirit.

this must be why I feel an almost uncontrollable desire to blow out candles and eat cake when I hear the "Happy Birthday" song!
tulc(it's true! he saw a video on youtube about it!)

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

What makes you think that?

i've read two books, presenting the case that the moon landings were faked. i've seen a lot of videos analysing the films etc. i don't know if it's true, i doubt it, but i think the photos and films are faked. maybe they managed to get to the moon in the later missions.. the people involved show enthusiasm, whereas the others act like morose recluses.

 

[Rick Otto]

OR they aren't actually under the influence of an organization that no one has presented evidence even exists.
tulc(finds it's hard for people to be "unknowingly influenced" by other peoples myths)

Do you apply the same standard of evidence for your other beliefs?
Can you prove Satan even exists?

 

[Rick Otto]

i've read two books, presenting the case that the moon landings were faked. i've seen a lot of videos analysing the films etc. i don't know if it's true, i doubt it, but i think the photos and films are faked. maybe they managed to get to the moon in the later missions.. the people involved show enthusiasm, whereas the others act like morose recluses.

The evidence that it was faked was pretty convincing, however I've heard it wasn't so much a fake as it was a cover-up of the help they were getting.

 

[David Brider]

i've read two books, presenting the case that the moon landings were faked. i've seen a lot of videos analysing the films etc.

And have you read books or seen videos presenting the counter-arguments? Even if you haven't, have you analysed the strengths of the arguments supporting the "moon landings were faked" position? Heck, I saw a documentary several years ago, promising an extensive look at the arguments, but what it *actually* did was just give about 90% of the airtime to the "fake" arguments, didn't look in any depth at the counter-arguments, and honestly, if I didn't know better or weren't prepared to dig deeper, I'd have gone away from watching that thinking, "oh, that's it then - they were clearly faked." Check out the Mythbusters programme about the moon landings, if you can - that pretty comprehensively debunks most of the arguments for fakery.

Apart from anything else, if it *was* faked - even if the first ones were faked and latter ones weren't - why have there been no moon missions subsequent to 1972? If it were that easy to fake it, couldn't NASA just keep staging fake missions every so often? It's got to be cheaper than sending up actual legitimate proper moon landings. By now, we could probably have got to Mars and beyond in terms of fake landings - just pretend to send up a Mars rocket, keep the astronauts out of the public eye for a few months, set up a sound stage and fake a Mars landing. The fact that there've been no manned missions beyond the Shuttle and space stations for 40 years doesn't do the "they were faked" argument any good.

 

[David Brider]

The evidence that it was faked was pretty convincing...

Really?

...however I've heard it wasn't so much a fake as it was a cover-up of the help they were getting.

What "help"?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

And have you read books or seen videos presenting the counter-arguments? Even if you haven't, have you analysed the strengths of the arguments supporting the "moon landings were faked" position? Heck, I saw a documentary several years ago, promising an extensive look at the arguments, but what it *actually* did was just give about 90% of the airtime to the "fake" arguments, didn't look in any depth at the counter-arguments, and honestly, if I didn't know better or weren't prepared to dig deeper, I'd have gone away from watching that thinking, "oh, that's it then - they were clearly faked." Check out the Mythbusters programme about the moon landings, if you can - that pretty comprehensively debunks most of the arguments for fakery.

Apart from anything else, if it *was* faked - even if the first ones were faked and latter ones weren't - why have there been no moon missions subsequent to 1972? If it were that easy to fake it, couldn't NASA just keep staging fake missions every so often? It's got to be cheaper than sending up actual legitimate proper moon landings. By now, we could probably have got to Mars and beyond in terms of fake landings - just pretend to send up a Mars rocket, keep the astronauts out of the public eye for a few months, set up a sound stage and fake a Mars landing. The fact that there've been no manned missions beyond the Shuttle and space stations for 40 years doesn't do the "they were faked" argument any good.

I’ve been looking into the idea of a moon landing hoax for many years, and at the end of it, I don’t know what to think. So much evidence to show that they couldn’t have gone, that they couldn’t even have got out of the lander vehicle, with their space suits on, just for one.
All the claims of NASA can be debunked, and NASA do nothing to try and stop the growing number of people believing that they faked it all. They could easily take a few high res images of the landing sites, and put them on google moon, like they did on mars, to show that Richard Hoagland was talking out of his ‘imagination’.. the face on mars is just a big hill and everyone can see that now, end of the alien conspiracy on mars… so why can’t they do the same for the moon?

I have thought that they haven’t left low-earth orbit, because they can’t, the radiation would kill them.. so they endlessly go around the earth, like the Russians. NASA have earned the name ‘never a straight answer’… you can’t get the truth out of them.. so people think they are covering stuff up. You’v only to look at some of the moon landing pics to see that they were done in a studio, the astronaut figure standing in a pool of light, with darkness all around at the back and sides. The longer it goes on; eventually no one will believe that they went to the moon.

There's no need at the moment to fake another moon landing. They faked the first landing because they wanted an emotional boost, during the Vietnam war. Now they get that boost by faking the killing of the arch demon Osama bin Laden. They get the same results without having to do a mega-fake. Everyone believes that the saint Obama, got Osama, and he got his. No one questions anything, they still have faith in their governments.

 

[Albion]

What "help"?

Probably Jews who are the Illuminati who in turn control the Papacy through the Jesuits who created the Knights of Pythias on the orders of Satan--straight from his headquarters in a Starbucks in Seattle .

Feel free to rearrange the players in any order.

 

[tulc]

Do you apply the same standard of evidence for your other beliefs?
Can you prove Satan even exists?

hmmm...sounds like something you should start another thread about.
tulc(has his own thought about Satan, none of which are about the Illuminati)

 

[dcb1101]

Personally, I don't care if the Illuminati is real.
I don't care if there are other secret groups controlling Hollywood or the government.

I know my God is real and He is bigger then any negative group or force!

What is this world coming to?

 

[Jon David]

Personally, I don't care if the Illuminati is real.
I don't care if there are other secret groups controlling Hollywood or the government.

I know my God is real and He is bigger then any negative group or force

This pretty much says it all right here.

Way to keep your eye on the prize, friend. I mean that.

The people in here harping on and on about doom and gloom would do well to heed your words.

 

[woodpecker]

This pretty much says it all right here.

Way to keep your eye on the prize, friend. I mean that.

The people in here harping on and on about doom and gloom would do well to heed your words.

I suppose then you would say the apostles and Jeses were "harping on about doom and gloom"....Jesus and the apostles taught us to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, to looks for the signs of his return.

We are called to do both, trust our Lord, live for Him, and watch for His coming, those who are waiting AND WATCHING will not be caught off guard.

The end times is playing out right befor your eyes, the one world government is being formed, all the nations are gathering against Israel.

Keep your lamps full and your garments white.