How God's law will over throw the Illuminati

Can you give a summary? I really don't like silent videos that just display pages of text; they should just put up a document.

There is no illuminati

fiction is as fiction does.... nothing.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 10/19/2012 08:06 AM

God is not a person.

Lots of institutional catch phrases and learned sentiments; all basicall sourced by the elite.

the 'labels' are not god, they are of men.

The torah is the worship of EL, the bull god.

an institution, and by some definitions, a bad faith deception.

The fictions of men ar not god.

I would remain independent, know all the institutions are corrupted by men, and resist all mind control devices while at the same time dictating to the mass mind to create the collapse of this ficticious evil system.

we must have the initiative.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 10/19/2012 07:48 AM

There are plenty of evidence that there is Illuminati which consist some wealthy powerful families...if you would make some research you would find out the truth

Well - spoiler alert I guess. Jesus sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven UNTIL His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. What makes this happen is in the curses and blessings section of the bible, which is in Deuteronomy 28. If we live as God instructed us to, worshipping only Him and walking in all of His laws commandments, statutes and judgements, He promises to bless us and makes us the 'top' and not the 'tail'. He will put His people in charge of things here on earth, and drive the scum where they belong.

However currently we are in the inverse scenario, which is the bad one, where Christians live however they like and ignore what Jesus tells us plainly in Matthew 5:17-19, which is that the law is not only not destroyed (or taken away), but not even the smallest part of it will go before heaven and earth pass away! Hence, it's all still here, it's just that next to no one is keeping the law. But.... if we do, if a whole body of people keep the law and live as God instructed us to, then it changes the whole dynamic of this world.

Yeah, sorry, OP, but when you're talking about the Old Testament, you're talking about a group of blood-thirsty, megalomanical astronauts. "Yahweh" was one or more of these guys, who thought it was a hoot to fool us into worshipping him.

The real God, our Heavenly Father, is certain not the crazed person or persons who went around cutting off foreskins and killing everything in sight.

You'd probably have better luck with the New Testament...

Thanks.

So you're saying that any Christian who does not keep the Levitical law is "living however we like" and is partly to blame for how bad things are?

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 10/19/2012 07:55 AM

It's quite the opposite, the mind control devices of the elite have distracted you by creating labels and misdirection. 'El' means God in Hebrew which was the original language of God's Israelite people. Hence the name Dan-i-el means God (el) is my judge (Dan). Micha-el means who is like (micha) God (el) etc.

God's law was designed by God, not men, that's the whole frickin' point of this presentation!! If you don't believe in God then that's your first stumbling block, working out who Jesus is, and that He is returning, was crucified and so on, is much more important for you than worrying about the law at this point, but thanks for your input.

There might be some real God in the Old Testament, but, yah, mostly Yahweh the Fake.

Yes, exactly, and that includes me too I haven't been keeping God's feast days for example and I should be. People hold on to man made tradition or church tradition, such as Christmas and Easter that have nothing to do with Jesus, but they don't want to let them go. So they reject the truth and follow a (comfortable) lie, as an example. Many Christians are very confused when it comes to the law, they honestly don't know what to keep or if they even need to, but God's law is universal so when you break His law you sin. 1 John 3:4 Sin IS transgression of the law.

So, do you believe that keeping the law means keeping the sacrifices, the Sabbath (sundown Fri. to sundown Sat.), the restrictions on Sabbath travel, stoning rebellious children, and all the rest? If so, how is it even possible when there has been no Temple and no visible priesthood?

i do not stand under. no thanks, you can keep it to yourself.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 10/19/2012 08:04 AM

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. 

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

If you don't believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of both the old and new testament, you are missing the big picture my friend. He is the one and the same. You need to look at what the OT was about - foreshadowing events to come and prophesying the arrival of our Messiah. If you go through the full presentation it should help you understand this.

Sabbath absolutely important. As for animal sacrifice, Jesus replaced them as the perfect lamb of God as explained in Hebrews:

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

However, we can pray for the blood of the lamb to cover us, our households etc. in a spiritual covering, and we should! I do this daily.

Stoning rebellious children is very serious, clearly. If people turned fully back to God, and people lived knowing His law and were raised that way then I would have to say yes. I didn't make the rule, it's God's law. However trying to retrofit (so to speak) this would be very controversial - it would need to go before God. But there is really nothing stopping us from keeping the food laws, the feast days, and everything else.

It seems to me that you're arbitrarily picking which parts of the law apply to Christians. You cite Jesus' statement about fulfilling the law as a clear and undeniable injunction to keep it, then make allowances for parts that you personally feel have been exempted.

Hebrews 7 clearly states that "with a change of priesthood comes a change of law"; where one goes, so goes the other. And since we follow a new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek rather than Levi, we can have no part in that old law. And fulfillment has the same end result as annulment; the law is satisfied and no longer in effect, as the writer of Hebrews stated explicitly.

You can't keep parts of each, as Jesus explained in the illustration of the wineskins. If you know that Jesus' sacrifice made the animal sacrifices no longer needed, then why do you think He didn't make every other part of the old law no longer needed? How do you justify keeping some of it, when you clearly accept that there is at least one part that no longer applies?

What I'm saying is that your position is inconsistent; it is arbitrary and tries to blend old and new. Paul spent a great deal of effort opposing and refuting the legalists of his day, though of course most who cling to the old law simply reject Paul.

Not at all, but you are judging my explanation on the snippets I've given you without reading in it's entirety. Hebrews does say that Jesus is the ultimate sin offering, so that is indeed the only part that changed. But He still makes atonement for us UNDER the law. Jesus also said (don't forget this one) Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 

So Jesus' own words prove you wrong, how can the old be gone when Jesus says clearly He did NOT come to destroy (remove, take away, abolish), and that even the smallest parts will be kept.

If you go through the presentation, you will see that I make an example of Chik-Fil-A for cherry picking the law, and I agree 110%, we can't do that! And yet, I see it all the time let me tell you.

The illuminutty is >God

they are serpents of self in highest form, not god.

the back of the dolar pyramid is a deception/// it implies the elite equate themselves with "god" ie lucifer.

the elite need to be put on a tier lower.

Make a document out of it instead of a half-hour slide show, and just maybe I'll read it.

You still don't see the contradiction here: you want Jesus' sacrifice to be an exception to your claim that fulfilling the law does not mean changing it. You cite Hebrews when it states Jesus' sacrifice as supplanting the animal sacrifices, but you ignore Hebrews when it says "with a change of priesthood comes a change of law" and that the old law is annulled:

Heb. 7:11–7:17 So then, if perfection could come by means of the Levitical priesthood (which the people were put under by law), what need would there have been for another priest to arise— one not from the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law. The one we've been talking about is from a different tribe, one that has no access to the altar. It goes without saying that our Master came from the tribe of Judah, which Moses never mentioned with respect to priests. So it should be even more obvious that if a different priest comes in the order of Melchizedek, they did not come according to the law based on ancestry, but on the basis of the power of an immortal life, because He testified, "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek."

7:18–7:22 In fact, the former law is annulled because it is weak and useless since it didn't complete anything. But now we are introduced to a better hope, by means of which we draw near to God. And it isn't as though this happened without an oath being sworn! Now those who became priests never swore an oath, but that One came with the swearing of an oath: "The Master swears and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever." So accordingly, Jesus has become the pledge of a better contract.

If a law is fulfilled it is no longer in effect. You cannot keep parts of it. Jesus' own words thus prove you wrong. And so do the words of Paul:

Rom. 7:4–7:6 So then, my brothers and sisters, you too were put to death in the eyes of the law by means of the body of the Anointed, in order to belong to Another— the One who was raised from the dead— so that we should always be productive for God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions caused by the law were active in our body parts, producing death. Yet we were discharged from the law, dying to that which held us down, so that now we are able to slave in the new way of the spirit and not the old way of the letter.

I have it in pdf, how do I get it to you? PM me maybe. Here are the definitions for fulfil:


fulfil or fulfill (fʊlˈfɪl)

— vb , ( US ) -fils , -fills , -filling , -filled
1. to bring about the completion or achievement of (a desire, promise, etc)
2. to carry out or execute (a request, etc)
3. to conform with or satisfy (regulations, demands, etc)

Now in this case we know Jesus fulfilled the law meaning, to carry out/ confrom with or satisy. How do I know that? Because in the same verse, Jesus said 'I have not come to destroy the law'. Hence it HAD to mean he was fulfilling the law in the sense of keeping it all the way through - so that HE DID NOT SIN. Does that make sense?

You've said the law is annulled like 9.9 out of 10 Christians, but sorry mate, if it was annulled it would be the same as saying the law is destroyed, taken away or abolished. That's the bottom line, but let's not argue I do appreciate your interest in this topic, and let me know where I can send you the pdf. (will probably be tomorrow since it's just past midnight here now).

Thanks for caring, and being hot on the topic my friend :)

I'm well familiar with "law keeper" teachings, and with what you're arguing here, I honestly don't think it would make a difference.


No. 1 says "completion"; 2 says "carry out"; 3 says "satisfy". That all means exactly what I'm saying: that Jesus completed, carried out, and satisfied the law. Having done this, there is no need for anyone else to do it, as long as they are in Christ. Our righteousness, our keeping of the law, is not done by us but by Him. And Gentiles like me were never under the law in the first place, nor do we become Jews or under the law when we are saved.


Do you then deny and reject the scriptures I showed you that explicitly teach that the law is in fact annulled? This is not my opinion, it is the Word of God.


You're quite welcome. But I do implore you to accept what scripture teaches and not try to put us "under a yoke neither we nor our ancestors could bear". We have a Priest in the order of Melchizedek rather than Aaron/Levi, and a new law: love God and love people, because "love does no harm to its neighbor". Jesus said that "the time has come when we will worship the Father neither here nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and truth", and "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them". Simple, spiritual, and free... not to sin, but from sin, because we love Him. We "died to sin" and we "died to the law".

He is going to use china and russia to do it