TrueThinker

Where?

TrueThinker

Ah, someone is paying attention. Persia is Iran's original name, yes. No argument from me, but a bit of explanation.

At the risk of sounding 'cooky' what I am going to say next may go over your head:

We do not war in the flesh. (Huh?)

The angel who came to Daniel said "...the prince of Persia withstood me for 21 days." He wasn't referring to the natural prince but rather the fallen angelic spirit that controlled the 'region', which is not limited to Iran alone. Notice he also told him "...Michael, your prince.."- Michael is the archangel that guards the nation of Israel. Satan is the "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh".

Ephesians 6
When we say prince and principalities, biblically speaking, we are speaking in terms of the spiritual and not the natural. You see, what happens first in the spiritual realm, is then played out in the natural realm.

Ephesians talks about putting on the whole armor of God and fighting. This fighting is done with praying, and that's how the battle is won. Notice the prophecy said "...because of the prayers of the saints of the Most High God".

Read the prophecy again to see what I mean. It never addresses those enemies in the natural realm. It addresses the spirits behind them and the ones they've submitted themselves to. Now if it mentioned 'king', then that would be a natural person.

So I'm getting a little preachy but that's OK, right? But it's so you understand.

What about this? (for those who want to nitpick)

Prince of Babylon should be king of Babylon. Minor typo, (happens when you type fast). It should read "...the prince of the east that waged war against America, and the king of Babylon..."


(Now someone else is going to find something else so they can reject) But "him who has ears, let him hear..."

Toodles!

ju'iblex

so..... let me get this.

the prophecy did come true except for the snag that we just can't see it. right.

TrueThinker

You missed the point. You did see it. But you believe that there is only a physical realm

First in the spiritual, then the natural. America overthrew the regime within that time because the battle in the spiritual had been won and made it possible.

It happens in the spiritual then you see the effects in the natural.

Read the TIME Commemorative War Edition if it is still on newsstands. It's called 21 Days to Baghdad. You can look for it on the web.

ju'iblex

thanks for the clarification. the prophecy happened but we didn't see it, and it was in the wrong country even if it did supposedly happen.

Aethernaut

Not over my head at all. I understand your dogma.

All of these "prophecies" are vague enough to fit any modern Middle Eastern conflict. And everytime you get called on one thing or another you side-step by claiming that you didn't fully explain what you meant to or you simply shift the goalpost. There is nothing in the "prince and principalities of Persia" post to suggest that it is spiritual warfare first and physical second.

First you say:
Notice there is nothing in that statement that claims that "those who rule" are not of the flesh.

Then it magically turns into:
So, which is it? Oh, let me guess... the next answer will be "it's both, and here's why blah, blah, blah" which is all well and good for you but don't you think that any well meaning deity would have made this clear instead of clouding the issue with vague language. If your "prophecies" are really so important why not use concise language that more people will understand? Of course, doing that would take the control over "the flock" out of the hands of those who hear the prophecies from said diety. And we couldn't have the unwashed masses knowing how god really feels now could we?

This is sounding more and more like "Hey guys, look at me! I've got special SECRET knowledge. Looky, looky! My god loves me so much that he only let's me hear his "Stories From The Future(tm)." That makes me special which means I'm better than you and I'll prove it! Now submit to my will and follow my INVISIBLE SKY DADDY!"

Vague assertions being pigeonholed into events after the fact do not equal prophecy. (er, wait... maybe the definition of prophecy should be changed. )

I want to know exactly what the next earth shattering event is going to be that happens to the United States before it happens. I want to know locations, exact times (GMT), and names of key players. I want it in concise language that doesn't pussyfoot around and shift meaning at the prophet's convenience. That shouldn't be too tough for an omnipotent-omniscient diety. That is all I would require and would prove to me that your prophecies are true and accurate. I'm so sure of my position that I would even go so far as to convert to your particular flavor of god after the event should your god provide the required information above.

And while your at it, prove to me empirically that a "fallen angelic spirit" exists.

Gawdawful

Right. Only a real prophet could have predicted on March 21st that Baghdad would fall in "less than 21 days". Now, if God had spoken up a couple years ago and made the specific prediction that the United States would invade Iraq starting March 20th, 2003 to remove specifically Saddam Hussein, then you'd have something. But he didn't and you don't, so you might as well just look around on the floor for those loose screws.


Warren in Oklahoma

TrueThinker

I knew it would get to this.

There would have been no point to me posting this here if it was not relevant to the current war. That's why I called it a test. I even went as far as to emphasize the specific test.

You could look at the current events and see if it matches what was said in the prophecy. And the first people who responded knew it was relevant to that. I didn't wait until after it was over to post it. I posted it before so I had no way out. It would either happen or not. (I would like to know if any on here has ever tried to do such a thing...)

Now it seems some of you have run into a bit of a problem. The test I gave did match exactly. It came to pass. But some of you still want to reason it out of your heads. So now you're nitpicking to find something so you can reject. There was no "defiant regime" mentioned, "Persia" is originally Iran, and this and that. But no one can touch the fact that it was over within 21 days, that Saddam was crushed and the month of May was restful. People can't disprove that so when they're losing, they have to find another way to attack me personally. Is that supposed to make me back down?

Has anyone so far put up anything that disproves the test? Can anyone? That is the challenge!

Here is what I said:
Did it fail the test? No. They knew what I was talking about and they mocked me anyway, which I was okay with. Now you're off scrambling to find an error, as if it somehow nullifies the test.

Were none of you paying attention before the war?

And it's not over yet. Greater victories are fast approaching. It will happen suddenly. Then you will know it was the Lord's doing.

Aethernaut

If I must point this out... The tests:

#1:
Irrational gobbledy goop and most likely left purposefully very vague by whoever made it up. No details are given here that can't be pigeonholed into almost any given situation (pertaining to Al Queda). Therefore useless.

#2:
Refer to rebuttal #1 above (but substitute "four nations" for "Al Queda).

Finally some relevance and the most damning.
#3:
(Emphasis mine.)

Vague once again, yes. Particularly with the "prince of Persia" Iran reference that has nothing to do with Iraq except through twisted logic and magic spiritual warfare existing but let's look at some numbers:

The latest war in Iraq took exactly 21 days to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein starting on March 20, 2003 with major fighting ending on April 15, 2003. Coincidence yes, fulfillment of prophecy hardly. 21 days does not equal "less than 21 days." Less that 21 days is 20 or fewer days. The U.S. did not declare major combat operations over until May 1, 2003. That's a total of 30 days. On top of that the month of May in Iraq was anything but "restful" with 41 Coalition servicemen killed and several others wounded between May 1 and May 31. And a guerilla war slogs on to this day (a total of 205 days) in Iraq with morale weakening, fighting getting worse, an administration constantly lying to us and the American people's support waning. So technically, the war hasn't ended even though President Monkey, in some deluded state, declared victory.

So ultimately your "tests" get a big old F-. I'll give you a D for effort though.

Now, I know you'll pull some magic twist of reasoning involving spiritual war vs. physical war out your hat to shift that goalpost one more time but wouldn't it be easier to just concede and admit that prophecy is just a pipedream. Besides first you have to prove that your god and a spiritual realm exists. I've seen no evidence of either which pretty much nullifies your "prophecies" right out of the gate.

No one can see the future. No one ever has and, more than likely, no one ever will.

Aethernaut

And what the fuck is this "lord" thing? You keep bringing it up without a shred of evidence that it even exists. Is the above statement supposed to sound ominous? It just sounds like delusional belief in an ancient myth to me.