Donald Trump Implies He Is The Antichrist

And just for the record:

I am not a fan of "Israel" in terms of it continuing to exist in such a cesspit of hatred, intrusion, violence, altercation, and obstinate confrontation.

I think the USA should stop giving them an allowance, and stop with the asinine apologetics supporting the ludicrous placement of the "Jewish state." Really.

isn't he and Satan redeemed in the end ?
after the lake....

what Love is that ?
beyond hate..

who prays for Satan ?

if your boy was a Mad killer Prince
would you not still Love him ?
he is still your boy

But GOD doesn't exist.

Therefore Trump can't be the anti christ.

How bout that separation of church and state ?

originally posted by: Red Cloak
a reply to: Reverbs

Daniel 9:27

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate.

Time, Times, and Half a Time?

A Day Equals One Year

In Daniel's context, one "week" represents this final period of 7 years, not 7 days. At its signing, the final 7 years of Tribulation begin.

If you wonder what the Abomination of Desolation is -

Revelation 13:5

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Book of Daniel talks about how "he" will do the Abomination of Desolation, and how he will make a 7 year peace treaty. The Book Revelation then tells us who the "he" is that causes this Abomination of Desolation, and that it happens half way into the treaty (after 42 months or 3 and a half years) - it is The Beast (what the Catholic church calls "The Antichrist").

More on this can also be found in the Bible in the book of Matthew:

Matthew 24:15-16:

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

So again simply your premise :

Trump said Israel peace with Palestine = antichrist

can you support that somehow?

originally posted by: peppycat
He seems to want to follow through on things he says he is going to accomplish...? but from reading the link, i don't see he specifically said he would sign a peace treaty with Israel and Palestine...i'll read again.
ETA:I went to the link again and it said Trump wants Netanyahu to hold back on settlement, which is not what i read a few minutes ago, does the Time page keep changing?

It's changed several times already, which is very odd.

originally posted by: neo96
But GOD doesn't exist.

Therefore Trump can't be the anti christ.

How bout that separation of church and state ?

Nice try devil worshiper.

Trump is saying churches should have more power in politics.

a reply to: Red Cloak

Trump doesn't imply he's the Antichrist. You imply it. If your accusation is tied to Revelations, it is a book written by a traveling mystic, about 60,000K Roman storm troopers burning a temple and quelling a Jewish revolt.

Nero is John the Divine's 'beast.'

It was historic propaganda, written to encourage political warfare and has no bearing on today or tomorrow's world events.

Hundreds of years later it was included in the New Testament to serve other political needs.

originally posted by: Red Cloak


It's changed several times already, which is very odd.

are you guys checking the article update time? They may be updating it, or you guys are witnessing a live mandela effect.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Red Cloak
is Donald Trump The Beast (The Antichrist)?

It's sort of difficult to take an opinion on this topic seriously from someone who apparently believes the Beast and Antichrist are one in the same when the Bible is abundantly clear they are not.

Except the Bible clearly states The Beast brings the peace treaty, and the Catholic church calls The Beast of Revelation "The Antichrist".

It's a false biblical claim to say the Roman Catholic church's "Antichrist" isn't The Beast of Revelation. Because it is, it's the same exact thing. Antichrist from the scriptures isn't the same thing as Roman Catholicism's "Antichrist".

It's common knowledge that Roman Catholicism's "Antichrist" is the nickname of The Beast in Revelation that brings the Abomination of Desolation. Any claims to the contrary are false Christianity doctrines.

The Beast of Revelation is the same exact person as the Roman church's Antichrist. To claim otherwise, is to claim something that is totally false.

This part of the Bible --->

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Daniel 7:25 “He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.”

Revelation 13:3 “And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”

Revelation 13:5 “And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.”


---> Refers to The Beast, which is almost universally called, "The Antichrist" in Roman Catholicism. And refers to a single person, a man. This part of the Bible, about The Beast, has nothing to do with this other below part of the Bible, which refers to anyone who is Antichrist in spirit, and thus is an anti-christian person in nature.

1 John 2:18 “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”

1 John 2:22 “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.”

So no, you are actually incorrect.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
And just for the record:

I am not a fan of "Israel" in terms of it continuing to exist

I'm quoting this snippet to show you how easy it is to throw anyone directly under the wheels of an oncoming bus simply by focusing on part of what they said.

Think about that (yeah, I know, I know, it won't happen) before you continue to harp against people like Trump based on your visceral reaction to snippets of their comments.

originally posted by: Red Cloak
Except the Bible clearly states The Beast brings the peace treaty,

No it does not. "Covenant with many" does not mean "peace treaty", and there is nothing else to back that claim.

a reply to: Red Cloak

antichrist is a position of the heart not a human possessed by some supernatural all powerful being with super powers

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Visceral reactions? You have permission to ask ANYONE who is a close friend or family member of mine. ..... to verify my stance.

I do NOT think "Israel" needs to be in the Middle East. I think it is PROBLEMATIC that their 'country' was placed on a site riddled with such volatile genetically-implanted hatred. I DO NOT CARE about "where" they live.

If the Jews want a sovereign, protected area and agree to not bother others, let's have them move to Montana, or some obscure desert reservation within the borders of the US. Let's not give them more consideration than the Native North Americans were given during the seige of this continent.

Let's agree to get along with Canada, and Mexico, and ensure that everyone in the Western and Northern hemisphere of this bloody planet is cared for, fed, housed, educated, and provided with medical care.

WITH WHICH OF THOSE IDEAS DO YOU NOT AGREE?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Red Cloak
In the first place, a treaty involving just Israel and Palestine is hardly "covenant with MANY". Those who use this line of argument normally propose a much more wide-ranging agreement covering a larger number of countries.

In the second place, the "great treaty with many countries" interpretation is also a complete misunderstanding of the verse.
The covenants in the Biblical period were made between TWO parties (even if one of the parties might be a corporate one). A one-to-one relationship. Therefore "covenant with many" would not be the kind of multi-party agreement that people contemplate.
It would be a series of one-to one covenants- if you make many covenants with individuals, the end-result will be that you will have made "covenant with many".
The passage depicts a great ruler building up a network of subordinates or clients (in the political sense) by establishing a personal relationship with each one, many times.

I have posted all the relevant verses from the Bible. It is very clear that it means Israel and Palestine. The "covenant with the many" obviously refers to the United Nations, since under international law, any such treaty must be signed and approved by the UN.

It's quite simple and obvious.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If the Jews want a sovereign, protected area and agree to not bother others, let's have them move to Montana, or some obscure desert reservation within the borders of the US. Let's not give them more consideration than the Native North Americans were given during the seige of this continent.

WITH WHICH OF THOSE IDEAS DO YOU NOT AGREE?

You just called for genocide against the Jewish people.

Since life never ends, from planet to planet. All civilisations have their own cute apocalyptic hopes and fears.

a reply to: anotherside

yeah. really cute.

a reply to: Reverbs

I already did. Judea refers to Israel and Palestine. It's not my premise, it's fact.

Matthew 24:15-16:

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

From Wikipedia --->

Judea or Judæa is the ancient biblical, Roman, and modern name of the mountainous southern part of Palestine. The name originates from the Hebrew, Canaanite and later neo-Babylonian and Persian name "Yehudah" or "Yehud" for the biblical Israelite tribe of Judah (Yehudah) and associated Kingdom of Judah, which the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia dates from 934 until 586 BCE.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
WITH WHICH OF THOSE IDEAS DO YOU NOT AGREE?

All of them, frankly. I find them incredibly naive and childish in their understanding of geopolitical issues and the reality that we absolutely a species of borders and classes, some of which either desire isolation or need to be isolated.

a reply to: Reverbs

no I did not. I just called for CUTTING THE APRON STRINGS of the Jewish "state" of "Israel" (which is an artificial and conciliatory construct anyway!) existing in the Middle Eastern Desert. I am against the never-ending wars and hostility and nastiness of the people who subscribe to the ridiculous "Abrahamic religions."
The state of "Israel" is now 60 years old. They can sink or swim. We don't need to support their lifestyle anymore!!!

And please don't misrepresent what I just said.
WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE where they are located? They can come to the USA and be treated just fine...what the hell is with this eternal squabbling over a few acres of unproductive desert? WHY is this necessary?