Future Russian Tzar 2022 Log

Tzar Log; Entry #24 - July 2022

Someone asked me about "End Times" and "God's Time", so I will do my best to explain from my observation in regards to the Tzar.

Problem is that in one place it's 2500, in another it is 2352, in our place it can be 2054 or sooner, etc.

Humanity is nearing the stage of Type 1 Civ, the issue is that around 0.80 Type Civ is where most mess up and the really bad stuff happens and goes wrong. It is also around the time where divine intervention tends to occur, the reason humans are currently in the state of chaos is that they are 0.06 - 0.08 points away from reaching that specific stage.

I am using the human measurement scale so it is more understandable, it is also the reason why most of you feel and know that something is about to occur. You can't explain it, can't put your finger on it and nor really give it an accurate thought... But it is there!

There is a perfect explanation for it but I am not going to go into that, that is a story for a whole another time in time... We'll get there when we get there! (And before you all start tripping no I am not a time traveler).

Anyway, during certain moments intervention needs to occur, hence the anti-christ and the tzar will both show up. As you know it will first be the anti-christ there are many names for him, but yes the real one does exist. Just as the Tzar exists so does the other, this entire situation will determine the direction humanity will head into. Certain factors still can tip the whole scale into the wrong corner and cause the wrong outcome.

a reply to: WanderingMrM

Makes perfect sense.

I see the progress of civilization that you describe is like when people get tired of each other, but are made to stay together and start a fight. The most important part of the fight is to listen to the person and change behaviour for the better. So we're pretty much reaching the boiling point.

AC and tzar sound like they will have the same idea on global focus when we need to work together without functioning economies (that are not doing well), but represent different things. e.g. one represents physical values (infrastructure/future quality of life), another may represent it as something that comes from within individuals.

originally posted by: pureclover
a reply to: WanderingMrM

Makes perfect sense.

I see the progress of civilization that you describe is like when people get tired of each other, but are made to stay together and start a fight. The most important part of the fight is to listen to the person and change behaviour for the better. So we're pretty much reaching the boiling point.

AC and tzar sound like they will have the same idea on global focus when we need to work together without functioning economies (that are not doing well), but represent different things. e.g. one represents physical values (infrastructure/future quality of life), another may represent it as something that comes from within individuals.

So I've been observing the Tzar for a while now and it is interesting the way he practices certain things, it's almost as if a mixture of Islam, Russian Orthodox things and something else I can not explain.

Tzar Log; Entry #25 - July 2022

So there have been many messengers of the Creator/Creation, many of whom have been either interpreted as prophets, messengers and even son of God.

From what I have been observing, the things that the Tzar has been experiencing, I suspect that he might be a messenger or maybe the last messenger. Yes I know it is about to piss off many Jews, Christians, Catholics or Muslims, however I suspect it could be true.

The Tzar has experienced revelations from many religions of the world, some of which have definitely rang true to be of those groups.

Which is why I suspect the Tzar to be the last messenger and it is why he will be needed to unite most of those on the side of Creation to follow the Creator in the time of need when humanity will need it most.

Sounds odd and a bit extreme, but I am possibly starting to understand the bigger picture.

originally posted by: WanderingMrM
Tzar Log; Entry #25 - July 2022

So there have been many messengers of the Creator/Creation, many of whom have been either interpreted as prophets, messengers and even son of God.

From what I have been observing, the things that the Tzar has been experiencing, I suspect that he might be a messenger or maybe the last messenger. Yes I know it is about to piss off many Jews, Christians, Catholics or Muslims, however I suspect it could be true.

The Tzar has experienced revelations from many religions of the world, some of which have definitely rang true to be of those groups.

Which is why I suspect the Tzar to be the last messenger and it is why he will be needed to unite most of those on the side of Creation to follow the Creator in the time of need when humanity will need it most.

Sounds odd and a bit extreme, but I am possibly starting to understand the bigger picture.

Good job! This is way closer to what I know - a last messenger sent into a different era of the earth development.

The only thing I think differently is that he's not a Tzar (no russian connection at all), but someone casual with some islamic background and some christian influence.

a reply to: miri2019

I suspect he is a future Tsar, with a Christian Orthodox background but he will be leaning more towards Islam.

a reply to: WanderingMrM

Your posts just keep proving how your Tzar is lining up with the ant-Christ. If your Tzar is leaning Muslim, then he doesn't believe that Christ is who God said he was, according to the Bible, making him an anti-Christ himself. According to John 1, Jesus IS our Creator, so your Tzar won't be leading humanity towards Him if he's leaning Muslim. So, how do you explain the contradiction?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: WanderingMrM

Your posts just keep proving how your Tzar is lining up with the ant-Christ. 1) If your Tzar is leaning Muslim, then he doesn't believe that Christ is who God said he was, according to the Bible, making him an anti-Christ himself. 2) According to John 1, Jesus IS our Creator, so your Tzar won't be leading humanity towards Him if he's leaning Muslim. 3) So, how do you explain the contradiction?

1) John's epistle never said anything about subscribing to a belief in Jesus' death and purported resurrection, it says that whoever rejects that Jesus Christ incarnated into the physical world and that he came from God is an antichrist. Muslims acknowledge Jesus' existence and authority, they only reject that he experienced death and that he literally went up into the clouds.

2) Bear in mind that the translation of Logos into the "Word" is based on a personal interpretation of Martin Luther. Schopenhauer found Luther's translation to be sanctimonious while Goethe expressed discontent with Luther's reasoning. Luther himself never intended for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Goethe proposed corrections in this order: Mind, Power, Deed (or Act).

The mind is a tool devoid of content, power is merely ceremonial without being supported by ideals... no different from how the imposition of force without a righteous cause behind it is incapable of combating injustice. Christianity owes its spread to the fact that Roman persecution against its sects came too late.

I think "causation" approximates John's intended meaning, but since all action is based on Will/desire, and since the gradual development of consciousness presupposes an instinctive will to live, "yearning" (for the divine) seems a more fitting substitute for the Logos. Thus, this verse cannot be cited to argue that Jesus is god incarnate.

And it'd be unjust to omit the speculations of the ancient thinkers on this matter. St. Augustine admitted that he renewed his faith in his god from reading the Platonists, that their teachings in many ways led to god. St. Justin Martyr indicates that he found refuge among the Platonists after being rejected by a Pythagorean. Therefore, let's hear Plato out on this matter: www.thoughtgymnasium.com...

"Plato never used the term Logos – or Nous, for that matter – in the way the Pre-Socratics did; he never had an explicit Logos doctrine. But he did believe in a rational order to the universe; a ‘oneness’ connecting all physical particulars... The ideal of “formness” is, for Plato, the universe’s ordering principle."

The "first principle" of pre-Sokratic thinkers pertained to the nature of a primordial, preexisting material, which is even implied in Genesis 1:2.

Philo affirms that "the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world" and that "the logos was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe." Philo appears to have hit upon the meaning intended by John: "God" in John 1:1 is synonymous with the "kingdom of god". The natural arrangement of government is that of a hierarchy. Christ was an ambassador of a higher kingdom, not the supreme creator himself. Jesus was merely the vessel for Christ, only Jesus experienced the sensation of death (the view of Cerinthus, who had been accused of authoring the gospel of John).

3) An important, overlooked sign related to the Mahdi's appearance is that the world's enlightenment would be established from the East to West, which is consistent with the coming of Jesus (Matthew 24:27).

Between Russia, the Far East, and the nations of Islam, only Russia is capable of seeing this through. China has already succumbed to an anti-social disposition. Japan is thoroughly pacified. I hardly need to mention the state of affairs in India. Palestine is no longer represented by organic leadership, the forces of Islam (Hamas and Hezbollah) stepped in, not on its behalf but for their own cause. Russia is the final bastion of a voiceless, powerless Orient. No other nation is better situated and fitted for the stewardship of the nations, one day furnishing relief for worldwide famine and emancipating nations from the "law(lessness) of democracy".

It's possible that Russia may succumb once again to communism during WW3, but that won't be led by the Antichrist. These leaders will either commit suicide or be torn apart by the people, unless the Tsar intervenes and shews amnesty.

There may be more than one Antichrist incarnated at the same time, but no more than three individuals. First, we have the most obvious one, the supreme ruler of Palestine and conqueror of the Middle East. He'll probably preside over WW3 as warlord and instigator. Second, there's a high probability that America will come to be dominated by an Oriental, insensitive despot, a natural consequence of its party system/division. But the Russian Antichrist can only come after Russia has been consecrated to the Church and a sufficient period of time has passed. He'll either come from China or a Chinese-dominated Russia. He is the one predicted by Nostradamus to be the next Xerxes, the "third Antichrist".

Lastly, I'd also like to draw your attention to the visions received by theologian Ken Peters. He appears to have mistaken the Tsar for the Antichrist. He mentions glimpsing deceased persons - though not all of them - being simultaneously resurrected (which caused worldwide earthquakes), but saw nothing to validate a belief in Rapture or living believers being taken up into the sky.

a reply to: hjesterium

Sorry, but now you're ignoring Colossians 1:15-17.

Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, much less the Creator, so they are technically ant-Christ no matter how much lip service they try to give about holding him up as only a human prophet who will return as a human and then die. That's not who Jesus was.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: hjesterium

Sorry, but now you're ignoring Colossians 1:15-17.

What's the point of citing scripture when you haven't even begun to attempt to understand it, let alone indicating any familiarity with etymology and philology?

Hebrews 1:3 more or less reiterates Paul's message as: 1) the exact representation/image of his hypostaseos and 2) radiance of his glory.

1) The term derived from hypostasis is typically rendered as nature, substance, or essence, while KJV (dubious) renders it as "person", or being. I would argue that Paul actually conceived his god as impersonal and removed from human passions, analogous to the beliefs embraced by Stoics and so-called neo-Platonists, from whom he certainly borrowed ideas from.

Here I must draw attention to the origins of the term "substance", that was coined by Descartes in his concept of immaterial substance, calculated to avoid drawing hostility and suspicion against him. Etymologically, substance is just another word for "matter". To talk of immaterial matter is clearly a contradiction, bringing about its own negation, or cancelling itself out, so it follows that immaterial beings cannot exist.

Reinterpreted in this light, the verse reads: the exact representation/image of his material form.

As Thomas Jefferson once put it in a letter, to speak of immaterial existences is to conceive of nothingness/an infinite void; to say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial means to disclaim their existence.

Jesus' students were not such (un)believers (i.e. modern Christians), seeing as how they kept mistaking him for a ghost, indicating a persistent and lingering superstitious belief in departed spirits visiting the living. Jesus never bothered to correct their superstition, he merely assured them that he himself wasn't a ghost. In order for ghosts to interact with the living, that is, render themselves perceptible by sight and hearing, they too must necessarily partake of and interact with this matter. In other words, Air. That's why St. Paul placed their domain in the earth's atmosphere (Ephesians 6:12) and identified their ruler as "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2). This is in agreement with the view of ancient pre-Christian thinkers.

2) Such (un)believers must necessarily profess that the world is ruled by chaos and disorder, without rhythm of life, without any pattern in the conflict between good and evil. It's not really a progressive straight line, but a cyclical interaction (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8), periods of good and evil alternating by design, not randomly.

The "radiance of his glory" has little to do with pride, renown, and sovereignty (temporal greatness, or world conquest), but can only be an allusion to the existence of a cosmic/universal/divine Law and orderly principle/design in creation, from which all things, whether thrones, dominions, or ruling authorities, derive their raison d'etre. Without natural laws as a model, there could exist no man-made laws. When these man-made laws have outlived their purpose, they lose their original inspiration and they become an evil hindrance, the original intention behind them supplanted by an infernal inspiration (Ephesians 6:12).

The "kingdom of god" being established on earth plainly means everything being set in order; for god had shaped the world and deemed it good (Genesis 1:31). Our resident seer has indicated that the Tsar was shown how the splitting between our war-torn civilization and that of a paradisaical/cultural/idealistic society came to be. I surmise that this splitting must've begun with the need for lawgivers, judges, and lawyers (interpreters, priestly caste), which is confirmed by Plato in his aptly titled discourse Laws.

a reply to: hjesterium

Clearly you spend more time studying philosophy than the Bible and are clueless about how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are related, much less anything else the Bible speaks of.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: WanderingMrM

Your posts just keep proving how your Tzar is lining up with the ant-Christ. If your Tzar is leaning Muslim, then he doesn't believe that Christ is who God said he was, according to the Bible, making him an anti-Christ himself. According to John 1, Jesus IS our Creator, so your Tzar won't be leading humanity towards Him if he's leaning Muslim. So, how do you explain the contradiction?

I've been shown the antichrist and the spirit of it, and I will say onto you that humanity is not ready for the big surprise of who it will be and what religion he will preach...

Tzar Log; Entry #26 - August 2022

Something something dark side, something something lost war...

New entry log and first one for the month of August, it has been informed that the Ukrainian Nationalists given the opportunity or threat of loss out of spite might possibly blow up most of their NPPs or as they refer to the AESs.

This is one of 3 possibilities of a dirty route that they will take if Europe and U.S gives Ukraine away to Russia, it will be a higher probability come winter months as most of Europe and U.S will halt weapon deliveries to Ukraine for obvious reasons of not letting Europe freeze or starve. The coming winter for Europe will be extremely brutal, especially this year so if we are to see this unfold.

It means that Ukrainians will be left alone with no weapons to defend themselves and things are not as good as people think or what is being reported.

What does this mean for Europe? The fallout of these sites can lead it all to be directed on to Europe and we could see something that we can only think about as a wild fantasy.

So let's hope if this scenario does start playing out that Russians will be able to deal with the nationalists before they decide to blow the roof off Europe's Illusion of Safety!

The Tzar is aware of the situation as well and I got to observe a few interesting things unfold.

originally posted by: WanderingMrM

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: WanderingMrM

Your posts just keep proving how your Tzar is lining up with the ant-Christ. If your Tzar is leaning Muslim, then he doesn't believe that Christ is who God said he was, according to the Bible, making him an anti-Christ himself. According to John 1, Jesus IS our Creator, so your Tzar won't be leading humanity towards Him if he's leaning Muslim. So, how do you explain the contradiction?

I've been shown the antichrist and the spirit of it, and I will say onto you that humanity is not ready for the big surprise of who it will be and what religion he will preach...

Of course not. The Bible makes it clear that the anti-Christ will come across to the people of the world as being the total opposite of what he truly is. That's how he will deceive the masses before he reveals his true nature. He will come across as a savior of sorts before his evil desires take over. With that said, don't expect your Tzar to be any different.

possibly relevant Bible verse

Isaiah 41:25
"I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay." (King James Bible)

I can't quite figure this, as Jesus wasn't known for spending any time up North of anything?
so maybe about someone else?

originally posted by: ElGoobero
possibly relevant Bible verse

Isaiah 41:25
"I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay." (King James Bible)

I can't quite figure this, as Jesus wasn't known for spending any time up North of anything?
so maybe about someone else?

This is highly interesting as well because it would explain the Tzar hmm...

However, what makes me curious is that we are also told that the Creator will ordain one to smash nations and leaders of those nations like pottery.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: hjesterium

Clearly you spend more time studying philosophy than the Bible and are clueless about how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are related, much less anything else the Bible speaks of.

Your statement undermines the whole history of Christianity, considering how Church Fathers, priests, monks, saints, and even heretics studied philosophy alongside the Bible. Origen made a passionate case for the mutual existence of philosophy and religion. Apostle Paul quoted from the pagan philosophers for his cause.

And then Protestants wonder why Catholics and Orthodoxy find their sects so abominably lawless and devoid of authority. All Protestants really have to lean on is the Bible, and they've gone so far in apostasy so as to reject miracles in the present time.

"Clueless" That's exactly what Pelosi resorted to in her CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. That just indicates to me that you're completely unable to muster up any defensible arguments.

originally posted by: Deetermined

The Bible makes it clear that the anti-Christ will come across to the people of the world as being the total opposite of what he truly is. That's how he will deceive the masses before he reveals his true nature. He will come across as a savior of sorts before his evil desires take over.

The Christian interpretation of Antichrist as a seducer is based on a flimsy Nero persecution myth. Chrestus /= Christos. Pontius Pilate wouldn't have been referred to as procurator. Church history is rife with obvious late-century interpolations. Nero always wanted to be admired by the people, he never concealed his flamboyance from the public.

The Antichrist will probably just be another Woodrow Wilson or FDR, endowed with a messiah complex and suffering from a mental illness caused by physical infirmities. He'll enter into politics with good intentions before resorting to wrong methods.

Besides, your narrative that he'll be seized by immoderation after coming into power is actually an anti-Semitic talking point! How typically Protestant of you.

TPTB couldn't do much with a run-of-the-mill near-sighted politician, who eschews his cause when it no longer suits him, the Antichrist would've had to sufficiently mastered his passions to pose a long-term threat.

People are not born bad, they're shaped that way by education or lack thereof.

a reply to: hjesterium

So far all you've done is argue against any biblical views on the matter, which is fine, but it doesn't change your ability to decipher the Bible.

If you want to combine history and philosophy to come up with your own conclusions on what our future holds, more power to you. I personally choose to follow the Bible and believe what Colossians 2:8 says.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: hjesterium
If you want to combine history and philosophy to come up with your own conclusions on what our future holds, more power to you. I personally choose to follow the Bible and believe what Colossians 2:8 says.

You're seriously going to base your viewpoint and way of life on a SINGLE instance of the word "philosophy" (Greek philosophias) in the entirety of the Bible? And with such a blatant disregard for context (Jewish philosophy of circumcision). Who is so dense? Besides, Paul's authorship of the letter to Colossians is, in fact, widely disputed.

In connection with the occurrence of words found nowhere in Paul's other letters, one theory is that the Colossians embraced Epicurean philosophy. If this be true, then you see how even in Acts 17:28-29, Paul had to resort to invoking the renowned pagan philosopher Epimenides and pagan poet Aratus in order to reason with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers? If he had simply told them they were bs, he'd have been laughed off the stage and thoroughly discredited in the eyes of thinking people. He'd have gradually weaned his brethren off of philosophy by appealing to Epicurus' authority in these matters.

If a diligent writer like Paul had intended to lay down an indictment against the whole tradition of ancient philosophy, he wouldn't be content with a single letter confined to fellow believers. He'd have also publicly delivered many lectures among the learned of his times and earned their respect for it.

Paul's supposed contemporary, the slaveborn philosopher Epictetus (like Paul, Epictetus regarded his belief as a way of life, not theory), had indicated that in his days, nobody took the profession of philosopher seriously, that they refused to ascribe any value to the discipline.

So the Roman authorities wouldn't have even regarded his oratory as a public disturbance, as they did with his religious controversies. Evidently, Paul did not intend or undertake to carry out philosophical reform to such a great extent, seeing as how he still ended up martyred for his religious beliefs. If he had succeeded in presenting himself as respectable before the philosophical world, they'd have rallied to his side and lobbied for his release.

At the very least, it's indicated that they were willing to hear him out again. So too should Christians take philosophy into account in order to gain a hearing among skeptics.

a reply to: hjesterium

Paul knew and understood that there would be no reasoning with the sceptics. He understood too that only the Holy Spirit could get through to people in determining their faith to follow Jesus Christ and to truly understand who he was. Paul even wrote about that. It wasn't up to Paul to convince people of anything, just to help lay out the instructions.

Jesus warned the disciples of his time of their pending deaths for preaching the gospel, why should we believe that Paul wouldn't end up a martyr too?