Nation shall rise against Nation

[for_his_glory]

Nah, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. Either you believe the image of man originated from God's Own Image, or you don't, and that is why the angels that appeared on earth also have the image of men.

In order to believe what you say, that in order for angels (and even Christ before His 1st coming) to appear with the image of man on earth, they had to put on a flesh human body, the burden of proof for that idea lay upon you.

Heb 1:2-3
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
KJV

These below Scriptures are about the appearance of The Father and Son in the Heavenly, not on earth. Since they are shown with the image of 'man', that proves what I've been saying, that the image of man originated from God's Own Image Likeness in the Heavenly, and thus did not originate with flesh.

Ezek 1:26
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
KJV

Dan 7:9
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, Whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire.
KJV

Dan 7:13
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him.
KJV

You are making your own rabbit hole by reading things into the question I asked that had nothing to do with the image of man.

Here is my original question in post # 148 : Where does it say in scripture that God created angels in His likeness as all I read there in Genesis 1:26-27 is that man was created in His image, after our likeness.

Please quit reading into things that are not written in what one post.

 

[DavidT]

You are making your own rabbit hole by reading things into the question I asked that had nothing to do with the image of man.

Here is my original question in post # 148 : Where does it say in scripture that God created angels in His likeness as all I read there in Genesis 1:26-27 is that man was created in His image, after our likeness.

Please quit reading into things that are not written in what one post.

You have been saying that angels must put on a human form in order to appear on earth.


You said this:
"God will only send an angel down to earth in human form to be seen of man in God's purpose like He did with Abraham and Lot."

That phrase is suggesting that angels have to put on human flesh to appear on earth, because that is what a 'human form' is, i.e., a flesh body. Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 even called the flesh body the "image of the earthy".

Thus that part in bold you said, is actually an addition... to God's Word, for it is nowhere written in His Word.

 

[for_his_glory]

Well no, we cannot try to change the context of the event by simple usage of a conjunction like "And".

It is a common mistake many make when reading those Revelation 12:3-4 verses that also mention the idea of "ten horns, seven heads", and then stop heeding the rest of that Scripture about that one only having had "seven crowns", and also skipping that Scripture part about that "dragon" drawing a third of the stars (angels) to earth.

So since you are not willing to discuss those differences with that Revelation 12:3-4 example, I will not continue discussing this with you either.

You do not want to discuss these things with anyone who doesn't agree with your thoughts and views.

These are discussions, not an I am right, you are wrong dictatorship that you present.

 

[for_his_glory]

You have been saying that angels must put on a human form in order to appear on earth.


You said this:
"God will only send an angel down to earth in human form to be seen of man in God's purpose like He did with Abraham and Lot."

That phrase is suggesting that angels have to put on human flesh to appear on earth, because that is what a 'human form' is, i.e., a flesh body. Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 even called the flesh body the "image of the earthy".

Thus that part in bold you said, is actually an addition... to God's Word, for it is nowhere written in His Word.

That phrase suggest nothing as I have said all along that God will manifest some angels in the flesh of man for His purpose. I never said all angels have to be manifested in the flesh before coming to earth so quit misquoting me.

 

[JLB]

Well no, we cannot try to change the context of the event by simple usage of a conjunction like "And".

Actually we are staying with the context of the passage by observing the conjuctions being used.


As we see, the first sign and second sign are interrelated throughout the chapter consistently, so trying to change the time frames would be inconsistent with the context, especially when the Spirit has shown us the pertinent time frame of three and one half years.


Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Revelation 12:1-9

• Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.
• Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.
• And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.
• She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.
• And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.
• Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Here are the passages broken down with the conjunctions underlined and the the woman from verse 1 being involved in the context through the 9 nine verses.


Please show me which passage you believe starts a different context with a different time frame.





JLB

 

[Northman]

Whose studies should I then believe, man's or what is already presented in scripture and the history of the four Empires?

That is what I am saying. Your explanations show wiki level knowledge of history. Your misunderstanding of the role of Charlemagne and the pope and the very kingdom of the Franks(Germans) is very evident. You have a 500 year gap of Rome not ruling Italy at all. The land taken was mostly Lombard. The HRE capital was never Rome. The constant fighting for religious freedom is evidence enough the pope didn't run things behind the scenes. Cuius regio, eius religio was a HUGE deal.

A list of Holy Roman Emps, and some didn't even get the title but had to settle for plain ol King of Germany.

Complete List of the Holy Roman Emperors

Not selling or passing off anything.

Yes you are. An idea is what you are selling. And you repost it constantly.

Romulus and Remus is a very debated subject whether they were real or not

No there is no debate, what there is by some folks is called musing. Why is it musing? Because all the evidence is already there. You can't find the story of Romulus and Remus before 300ish BC. They are about as real as Hercules. The claim about the date of Roman founding is LEGEND, as I already informed you that there were already settlements there before 750ish BC. That isn't opinion.

Now you can argue that there may have been a mortal man named Romulus, just like you can argue that there may have been a mortal man named Hercules, they both have shrines to them after all. That argument is going to be another one that has absolutely zero evidence and will be just something you "feel" or choose to believe as a matter of faith. God-like powers that come from a man....no, not real. You do understand that they claim Mars as the father, right?

Greek and Roman legends can't be read and given credence like the bible. No idea why you would do that. It's nothing short of mysticism.

 

[for_his_glory]

Northman

Yes, I do find some of my information from Wikipedia being an online Encyclopedia and also Webster's Encyclopedia and other online sources in order to help me study Daniel 7 and the four Empires. I also see you using online searches. I never ask anyone to believe me, but to do their own homework like I do. I also receive information from a friend that use to be a Jesuit High Priest that has left the Order and now exposes their hidden agendas that had its beginning in 1534.

This is not about emperors, but about the four Empires and the ruling powers of each one that I gave dates for each one.

This is from the website you gave which only deals with Germany. Notice the words "in theory" and "There are some gaps in the tally.

"The Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römisch-deutscher Kaiser, Latin: Romanorum Imperator) was the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. The position evolved into an elected monarchy, but the emperor elect (imperator electus) was until the 15th century required to be crowned by the Pope before assuming the imperial title. The title was held in conjunction with the rule of the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy (Imperial Northern Italy). In theory, the Holy Roman Emperor was primus inter pares (first among equals) among the other Roman Catholic monarchs; in practice, a Holy Roman Emperor was only as strong as his army and alliances made him.

This list includes all emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, whether or not they styled themselves Holy Roman Emperor. There are some gaps in the tally. For example, Henry the Fowler was King of Germany but not Emperor; Emperor Henry II was numbered as his successor as German King. The Guideschi follow the numeration for the Duchy of Spoleto. At times, two people claimed the title. These are denoted by the Rival next to their names. Most Holy Roman Emperors were also Kings of Germany, and this is noted next to them also. Interregnum means "between Kings". Traditional historiography claims a continuity between the Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. This is rejected by some modern historians, who date the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire to 962, whereas the Holy Roman Empire Association holds the traditional historiography view."




What I stated:

The Roman Empire was then called the Holy Roman Empire that was a political entity beginning in 800AD - 1806AD from the time of Charlemagne (Holy Roman Emperor) who protected Pope Leo III from Adrian's supporters in Rome to Francis II, King of France. Pope Pius VII was the Pope from 1800-1823.

Here are the four Empires that I am speaking about including the dates as this is found in Daniel 7.

Babylonian Empire:
(Iraq) The lion represents the winged lions that guarded the royal places of Babylon. This Empire ran from 2000BC - 1759BC

Medo – Persian Empire:
(Iran) The ribs of the bear are part of the consuming greed that devours the first empire.

Grecian Empire:
(Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt) Four wings of the leopard described the swiftness of this empire that ran from 334-331BC. It wrestled world dominion from Medo-Persia. After the death of Alexander the Great the kingdom was divided into four minor kingdoms that continued as prominent factors in world politics until the Roman Empire gathered it back as one kingdom.

Roman Empire: (little horn, Daniel 8:9-14, 23-27)
Iron represents the stronghold this nation had. Daniel chapter 2 mentions the iron element of this empire that it to will be divided and broken as God will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.
This Empire ran from 753BC -27BC

The ten horns/nations represent the nations the Roman Empire scattered to when the deadly wound was put upon them in 1798 as Daniel explained who the four Empires were, Daniel 7:15-28.

These are the ten nations that the Roman Empire scattered to:
These ten nations were the Anglo-Saxons (Germans in Great Britain), the Franks (French), Suevi (Portuguese), Visigoths (Spanish), Burgundians (Swiss), Alemanni (Germans), Lombards (Italians), Ostrogoths, Heruli, and the Vandals in northern Africa. The last three being Ostrogoths, Heruli, and the Vandals had already been destroyed by the Roman Empire before their deadly wound came in 1798, but was healed in 1929. (a revived Roman Empire)

 

[Prycejosh1987]

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Matthew 24:7-8

Scripture is true although i will admit we cannot see everything the bible says personally. For example i am from England, i do not know what is going on in USA and you would be vice versa. This saying has m,any twists and turns, but we can be sure that everything is happening, from watching the news. Jesus Spirit needs to be poured on all flesh first, we are getting close to the end.