"Disney channel is supposed to be for kids?"

That's the point. Look at Disney movies from old to new and search for the subliminal messages, pictures, symbols, etc. A child would not pick up on it. It is unlikely an adult would as well. With repeated viewings through several movies and shows, the message is implemented. This is a similar premise as the movie Inception. An idea is implanted at the deepest level that will push the subject to think and act in the desired way.

Think of a new song you hear on the radio. At first you dislike it, but the radio keeps playing it. After several times listening to the song, you actually start to like it and sing it to yourself. Today, things that would be disliked or more aptly condemned by the general populace (premarital sex, pornography, homosexuality, abortion, extreme violence, language, etc.) are now treated with indifference, liked and even lauded. This degeneration of society is propelled by "entertainment," which all people are now subject to even from birth.

I suppose the next step is the sexualization of children. With enough subliminal and in this case, "superliminal" (taking from the Simpsons) messages, the populace becomes desensitized which will lead to acceptance, tolerance, and then veneration. This has worked with the LGBT. It is only a matter of time before it becomes LGBTP (pedophiles).

I should add that it has also worked with the Progressives in converting the masses to socialism. As the saying goes, "Get them while they're young and the possibilities are endless."

I think there is one theatrical remake, one TV remake, and one sequel.

Michael Savage has been saying this for a while now. He says the West created ISIS (or backed it) and points out that within days of the Paris attacks, France bombs "key" ISIS targets. He questions when and where France got this information. Did they just get it after the attacks? Or did they have it for weeks or months? They most probably had it BEFORE the attacks. Why didn't they bomb them BEFORE the attacks? A lot of good questions.

Three days. Three nights. You can't get it from Friday.

He died on a Thursday and placed in the tomb before sundown. Let's count. First day (partial of Thursday day). First Night (Thursday night). Second day (Friday day). Second night (Friday night). Third day (Saturday day). Third night (Saturday night). Christ rose before sunrise.

That would be three days and three nights, as Christ specifically described. You can count to three too. I believe in you.

Also, the Passover Sabbath began at sundown on Thursday and lasted until sundown on Friday. The weekly Sabbath began at Sundown on Friday and lasted until sundown on Saturday. The women woke up early Sunday to apply the burial ointments. This would be the only day they legally could since the previous two days were Sabbaths.

"...its never going to happen."

This is especially true since "Lucifer" (or a supernatural antithesis of the Deity) is a fabrication. It has no basis in Scripture. "Lucifer" is the Latin vulgate translation of Heylel. The LXX translation is Phosphorous. All three words (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) are literally the morning star or the planet Venus. Venus is the brightest "star" in the sky that can still be seen in the morning. Isaiah is stating that the King of Babylon is as Venus falling to the ground. He was the brightest "star" in the political heavens, but his reign shall end.

An interesting note: the Roman Venus is the same as the Greek Aphrodite which is the same as the Canaanite "Ashteroth" or Babylonian Ishtar. What is depicted in Isaiah about the King of Babylon parallels a Babylonian myth about Ishtar, who fell from heaven (the sky) in an egg from the moon god Sin. Also note that Ishtar is Easter, and "Christians" still celebrate her holiday every year as well as weep for Tammuz for forty days.

It is as the Deity states to Cyrus: "I am [YHWH], and there is none else, there is no God beside me." To believe in a supernatural antithesis to the Deity is contrary to these clear words.

This is an asinine comment. Have you even read anything on this site? If you believe that the elite are pulling the strings, then you would understand that their agenda is to remove the idea of sin. They say that homosexuality is not a sin - that God created people that way. They either dismiss the Bible or attempt to make it a "living document" written for its time only and not applicable to a more enlightened society.

The Illuminati has not prevailed because they are combating religion. There are two opposing forces: "do what thou wilt" and "do what God wills." This has existed long before the Illuminati. This goes back to Eve when she saw the fruit and it was "pleasant to the sight." When people start doing what they feel is right in their own eyes, then the Illuminati prevails.

The elite ideal is spoken in John Lennon's "Imagine." No religion, no borders, no possessions... the world will be as one... or one world government. Notice he also says that he is not the only "dreamer." It is almost an anthem to the elite agenda.

Anyways, my point to your ridiculous statement is that religion opposes the Illuminati agenda and does not facilitate it.

No. I am not. JW's believe in a supernatural antithesis to God. I do not. I cite Isa 45. While most other "Christians" are dualist and faux-monotheists, like Zoroastrians. I am a true monotheist. There is one deity and there are no others. There are other differences as well.

Also, if my answers seem "rehearsed," then it is because I have seen these "proofs" before. They are largely misunderstood, taken out of context, or "wrested." Perhaps you should start reading these "rehearsed" answers. As I have never found any "Christian" that could actually debate them. They all fall back to "faith." But it is a false faith. It is a faith based on the "doctrines of men" and not on the teachings of God.

Maybe he means "crapy." As in, like a crape. A crape is a piece of fabric that is died black and used for mourning clothes at funerals.

"The trinity is not Catholic..."

Yes it is. Perhaps you are unaware of the numerous creeds that established the modern day doctrine of the Trinity. It was developed over time and many controversies. The question of whether or not the Messiah was God was decided in the Council of Nicaea. The proponents of the godhood of Jesus were in a vocal minority, which we will call the Athanasians. The Athanasians curried favor with Emperor Constantine I (a devout pagan) who sat as judge over the council and ultimately decided that Jesus was God, as it fell in line with his Mithraic beliefs. Athanasius characterized those that did not believe that Jesus was God as "Arian," but most were not followers of Arius. The "Arians" were the vast majority and were largely in Asia Minor and Palestine.

Incidentally, the Trinity is the "mystery of iniquity" spoken of in 2 Thess.

"I and my father are one..."

Like his audience, you misunderstand the meaning. It is explicated further in the book, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" - John 17:21. They is referring to the saints. The saints are to be one with the Father and with the son. Are the saints God as well? The obvious conclusion we come to is that Jesus means of one mind, one spirit, one goal, etc. He is praying for shalom (lit. wholeness), at peace with the Father and not divided against Him or each other.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Many say that this is an interpolation like the well-known Catholic forgery of 1 John 5:7. The evidence comes from third and fourth century citations of the verse that state only to baptize in the name of Jesus. This would fall in line with Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 19:5, all of which were baptized into the name of Jesus only.

But let us suppose that this is not an interpolation. What is the name that would be shared by all three (which is not an indication of the Trinity by the way)? Would it not be the name stated to Moses in the bush? The so-called Tetragrammaton? If so, this name was given to Jesus. It was inherited. As it says, "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" - Heb 1:4

When the Messiah returns, this name will be given to believers as well: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name" - Rev 3:12

They will be given his "new name." So again, this verse does not prove the Trinity as the name will be given to the saints as it was given to the Messiah.

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

This means that death and the grave are destroyed. How can hell be thrown into hell? Seriously... This event in Revelation occurs after the millennial reign of the Messiah, once all enemies of God have been squashed under his feet. The second resurrection occurs and the second judgment for those that died during that thousand years. Afterward, no more death and no more grave.

This is also stated in 1 Cor 15: "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Yep. I agree. The Roman Catholic Church and her protestant daughters teach another Gospel. Incidentally, the Pope (generally) is the "man of sin" and the "false prophet." This was believed by Protestants for centuries up until the last few decades.