We've had that video for years, that's nothing new. Why do you think that they could stage the whole plane setup, but a single frame edit of a security camera released ~5 years after the event is impossible for them to create?
The 9th is more relevant here. Not that the 10th doesn't also apply, but they could at least use the argument of, "muh emergency action" even though rights don't go away in emergencies.
The projection is so real. I didn't change a single point of view, and you simply can't admit that.
A human's word is not The Word of God.
Catholicism is a cult, you're not wrong about it being a false religion.
I did not change any position. You're just continuing to strawman.
Also, you're the one calling people 5 year olds. Ironic as fuck.
The only one using 5 year old logic is you. You're repeatedly creating a strawman of things, and you refuse to move past it.
Christianity is set apart from all other religions for a variety of reasons. You're ignoring all facts in regards to this and act as if my argument is of the premise that this isn't true.
God wouldn't allow HIS message to become, "lost through translations" as you're implying. This does NOT mean that other influences from the Devil don't exist, or that bad/malicious translations of The Bible don't exist at all. Your entire argument relies on this premise to be true for my argument, and it's just not the case. You're conveniently ignoring this.
If you carefully studied Jesus, you'd understand why His Word is the truth, and all other religions are false.
Also, for someone so arrogant, you're making tons of grammatical errors. If you're going to start putting me down with insults about my intellect and capabilities, it'd help if you didn't actually look like a 5 year old who found a keyboard.
See my other comment and stop trolling.
You're making an entire strawman up.
There is individual choice which you are completely disregarding. The Devil exists to lead people away from God, and one of the various ways this occurs is through false religions. Each individual is unique, and individual choice is a complicated topic, but surely if you're not trolling you should understand this point.
No, that's absolutely no figurative speech. The Bible speaks of a very literal mark on the right hand or forehead. This is not figurative in the slightest.
That's not a circular argument in the slightest. I'm not sure you know what that term means.
people are born into varous religions and at various times where the same religion was interpreted differently.
... Are you aware that people can be... wrong?
No, we do know for sure. The Bible says so in plain text. It CLEARLY states hand or forehead. God's Word isn't something that we humans can toy around with and play with to our liking.
There's certainly times when The Bible is being figurative, times when it's literal, and times when people can interpret the same groups of passages to mean something different. But something specific and literal such as this is not something that is remotely up for interpretation.
Well, it's really quite simple. Do you believe that God is powerful enough to ensure his message gets to us as he wants it to, or not? If not, he's not God.
In addition to this, we have good records of version history for The Bible. There are a few select instances of times of question and concern that pop up, but that does not apply to 99% of The Bible. This wouldn't be one of those times.
Pede, Jesus is no joke. It's not something you can afford to put off until tomorrow. Good works do not get you to heaven. The ONLY way to ensure salvation is through Jesus Christ. Accept his free gift and strive to get closer to him. If there's anything I can do, or anything I can help you with, please let me know.
The 9th would also protect us from a vaccine mandate of any kind, but wake me up when the courts respect the Constitution.
Very first line in your article-
"The word rapture does not occur in the Bible."
Yes? What's your point? We call it the Rapture but the Greek and Hebrew use a more literal sense.
And then it links to a second article that states the following-
"The timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation is one of the most controversial issues in the church today. The three primary views are pre-tribulational (the rapture occurs before the tribulation), mid-tribulational (the rapture occurs at or near the mid-point of the tribulation), and post-tribulational (the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation)."
Again, what's your point? There's an entire article that you're just ignoring by this nitpicking.
How does your source prove anything? And why isn't your source the Bible?
Are you illiterate, or are you just being coy? This clearly makes an argument by citing Bible verses.
I honestly could care less what the Dallas Theological Seminary or any of the 501(c)3 Babylon churches who endorse the vaccine have to say about Biblical interpretation.
No idea what you're coming from, here. Simply because a church gets tax exemptions you claim that it's a false church? That's not what Babylon in Revelations is referring to in the slightest.
You've also completely failed to make even an attempt at the points made in these articles, or the things I've written myself. You're not being genuine in the slightest. You're behaving like a toddler screaming, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!"
Pre-Tribulation is the only interpretation.
https://www.gotquestions.org/rapture-tribulation.html
There's a very clear distinction between the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture. Christ meets us "in the air" for Rapture and does not descend all the way to Earth. The Second Coming clearly involves Jesus on the Earth itself, and the goals of both events are very different.
https://www.gotquestions.org/rapture-of-the-church.html
https://biblia.com/bible/esv/matthew/24/38-39 https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-thessalonians/5/9
Again, Jesus spares us from the wrath of Tribulation.
This isn't quite the mark, but it's a precursor. The mark is only present after rapture, and the clot shot isn't given in the right hand or on the forehead.
Thanks for the sources. I appreciate your genuine interest and dedication in this topic.
That's quite interesting.
"[They] have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series."
Yet they're legally distinct?
Where do you see that Comirnaty isn't arriving until 2024? If they are (supposedly) chemically the same, how could this be true? And why do they share a legal distinction?
Good post. Good sources. We need more of this on the site, rather than the usual made up or misinterpreted bullshit with bad/no sources.
Where do people keep getting this claim from? Can you post some evidence of it?
I find this on the FDA's website: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
This was the Waco guy, right?
I don't know what's worse. The fact that we let trolls like you post such obviously fake videos, or the fact that people upvote you and believe you.
You seem to misunderstand my comment entirely.
Reread it.