Is Bush The Anti-Christ? (from ATSNN)

Originally posted by geekboy
Come on guys Bush is pretty down to Earth haven't you seen how well he treated the hurricane. [edit on 15-10-2005 by geekboy]

OMG.. ok dude.. just stop talking.. i live in florida.. on the coast on a small island.. i was on the beach AS hurricane Charley passed by.. and bush totally dropped the ball on hurricane Kat.. and now he is trying to play catch up and look good for the cameras by putting all his efforts toward it and hurricane Rita.

When Charley hit the florida coast.. bush was there the next day, not a week later.. then next day.. but of course his big brother is governer here and he couldnt risk brother Jeb loosing the next election cause he was slow to help his brothers state.

You need to acually take a real look at what the man does.. he isnt a bad man.. but he is a world class screw up and a total politician

Originally posted by geekboy
One more thing what evidence do you have that bush was doing the nose candy after all beacon you accursed me of the same thing
[edit on 15-10-2005 by geekboy]

Evidence?? ever hear of that thing called the news? he was a walking scandal even when his Daddy was president.. and vice president if i remember right.. and in 1976 he was arrested for drunk driving.. you want evidence of that too? look it up.. it is a matter of public record

and i said dont blame clinton for smoking pot when bush was doing coke.. i accept that both took drugs.. but your tryng to put it all on clinton

Oh, my! Here it is again. *sigh*

The biblical book of Revelations, the source of most of this Anti-Christ, number of the beast, False Prophet, yadayadayada was not written as prophecy. Look up the history, please.

The Revelation of John was written as a warning to the fledgling Christian church about the Roman Empire. It was written using a lot of allegory, imagery, riddle, innuendo, etc. to disguise its true meaning from the Romans.

There is no anti-Christ, no beast, no Rapture - pre or post tribulation, etc. coming because anything you base on reading of Revelations has already come-and-gone more than 1,700 years ago.

Why is it that so many religious people know so little about their religions?

Originally posted by Al Davison

Why is it that so many religious people know so little about their religions?

hmm.. isnt that part of the prophecies of revelations?

as to what you have said about revelations being a warning against the romans, what are your sources on this?

I do not believe Bush is the anti-christ but I know with out a doubt he is a fake Christian and quite possibly a devil worshipper. Bush family and elite at Bohemian Grove with their "mock" child sacrifices. Involvement with Skull and Bones aka Order of Death. I honestly do not understand why Christians vote for him.

Originally posted by Becon of Light

Originally posted by Al Davison

Why is it that so many religious people know so little about their religions?

hmm.. isnt that part of the prophecies of revelations?

as to what you have said about revelations being a warning against the romans, what are your sources on this?

there are hundreds...here's one to help get you started:
www.pbs.org...

ahh cool, i'll have a look at that. nice to see someone prepared to give sources

oh hey sorry.. didnt mean to give a one line post

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Becon of Light]

IMO ridiculeous to imagine that the book of "St John" could make any sense;anyway:"Revelation is the outpouring of a Jew seriously embittered by Roman imperialism"
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Baloria

You know what we got here; it’s a failure to communicate....
We have two of the three schools of prophetic interpretation represented, and are missing what should be the most common one, at least for Protestants.

The first and largest group here seems to be the Futurists so I will start here:

They believe that there will be an all powerful one time antichrist that is going to rebuild the Jewish temple, and declare peace for three years. He is then shot and receives a supposedly deadly wound which is healed. At that time he goes to the temple in Jerusalem, ends the Jewish sacrifice and declares himself to be god. All the while he has some little lackey false prophet guy that is running around doing who knows what. After he declares himself to be god, calls down fire from heaven the tribulations start, he has men marked with a brand of some type, and this goes on till all the Christians are gone. They either disappear before, after or in the middle of the tribulation period depending on your training. Anyway all hell breaks loose on earth for the next 3.5 years, and culminates in the battle of Armageddon that is to be fought outside Jerusalem, with the good forces of this world (the US of course, we are always the good guys), defending the Israelis. Once Christ shows up, he puts and end to that, then wrath is poured out on the folks that remain behind and that received the antichrists mark. After all that is said and done there are some futurists that believe that there will be 1000 years of piece on the earth and man will live in harmony with Christ. After that Satan is turned loose once again, the world is destroyed and everyone is judged. Now not all Futurists are millennialists and believe in the 1000 year reign, but some do and I brought it up for completeness.

That pretty well sums it all up for the futurists?
Did I miss anything?
Ps: Futurism came from the Jesuit Order for the Roman Catholic Church, but even they do not hold this as what will happen. It was just one interpretation. So how did it get so popular? Well it got popular through the Fundamental movement, and has dominated most of the literature and movies about the subject of the end times.

One reason for its popularity is that the 7 year period and the rebuilt temple are signs that man can look to and judge when they think that the end is near. To me this is way too obvious; everyone knows this tale, and so does the enemy of God and man, so there is ABSOLUTLY no way it’s going down like this. Satan is subtle and he is only interested in getting Christians to receive the mark, everyone else he considers already his and does not need to mark them. He is after his enemies the church, and what better way to get those guys then to give them a great sounding BS plan that makes them keep their guard down until it’s already too late and they don’t even realize what they had done?


Al Davison here, sorry to pick on you, is a Praeterist (might have spelled that wrong). This tells me that he is most likely a Catholic, since this is the version of the end times that is the official version of the Roman Catholic Church. What they generally believe is that the two main books of prophecy have to do with events that have already come and gone. The book of Daniel is about the torment of the Jewish people under the rule of Anitius Epiphanies. Anitius the madman was truly a nut and there are psudipigraphal books that are written about some of the savage things he did to torment and torture the Jewish people during his rule of them. One reason that this works well is that there are several references specifically mentioning Greece or Greecia in Daniel’s prophecies, and one that seems to be spot on about Alexander the Great. Similarly they believe that Revelations was written in that same style but has to do with the torture of the Early Christian Church under the Roman Caesar Nero. Nero was again a nut job that just went to town on these poor people in ways I cannot even imagine. This is where the 616, 666 part come in as that number matches both names for Nero, and few others. To be honest with you I don’t know quite as much about preternism as I do about the other two, since to me it is really wishful thinking to believe this world is not coming to an end, so AL if I did not pick on you too much, feel free to tell me some more about it sometime.


Now we come to my personal favorite….Historicism.

What Historicism shows is that the levels of the statue in Daniel, and the beasts of Daniel are all kingdoms, not men but countries. It is the line of superpowers or world controlling countries from the time of Daniel to the end of the world. This line of kingdoms, and the book actually says they are kingdoms, ends with the 4th kingdom and never says much about the 5th. The first four, and I think AL will pretty much agree with me on this one, are:

Babylon
Media-Persia
Greece
Rome

Historicism keeps that last week of the 70 weeks of Daniel in the days of Christ, where futurism moves it to the future and calls it the 7 year tribulation period. So the bit about the Futurist antichrist going to the re-built temple and taking away the feast, according to us Historicists actually refers to Christ, not the antichrist. So to someone like me it means that Christ confirmed Gods covenant with man for the 3.5 years of his ministry then he was cut off, killed. He made the ultimate sacrifice, and so the Jewish sacrifice is now null and void, it’s unacceptable before God, hence the cloth to the Holy of Holies being torn in twain after Christ’s death in the book of Luke.

The Four beasts of Daniel as I already stated coincide with the layers of the statue and the countries I mentioned. The significant aspect of this fourth beast is the Little Horn. Now most Futurists consider this person to be the antichrist, however that word is never mentioned in the book so am going to therefore avoid it to cut back on the flames to me, and here is where AL is going to part ways with me I bet. The little horn has some very specific things that he does, and he has a specific amount of time to be truly powerful. Some of the things that this horn does are to change the calendars and religious seasons and Sabbath days, to change the laws of God as they are in the bible, and to persecute many Christian people. To a historicist this is not one man but a line or station of many men; it is the line of the Popes and the Caesars that preceded them. That is why you have the 616 and 666 as valid numbers they pointed to the man that held that station during the life of John of Patimos. If you think about it, there is not a definitive time when the Roman Empire died out, nor is there a specific time when the Roman Catholic Church came to power. This is the “beast that was, and is not, and yet is”. Then Justinian started giving political power to the pope around 368 AD (have to look up the exact date later on), and the Caesars died out from there while the Pope became the head of the old empire, even setting the laws of the land. This would remain until around 1780 or so, about that time Napoleon removed the Pope as the head of the Italian people and gave the law back to them. This is the same time frame that is mentioned in the bible several times during which the little horn would be in power.

Now we skip along to Revelations, I could go into the stuff Christ talked about and other prophecies, but this is too long already.

The author of Revelations wrote the book to follow the same lines as the book of Daniel, so he KNEW that the beasts referred to countries, and therefore so do his. The first beast that is mentioned in the book of Revelations is the fourth iron beast of Daniel, or the legs of iron on the statue. Even the Roman Catholic Church in accepting Preterism accepts that this beast refers to none other then Rome itself, they just like to say it was pre-RCC Rome. The seven hills are the seven heads, also notice the same 10 horns with crowns. This is the beast that is wounded after it is removed from the realm of political power yet still continues to exist.

The second beast is the next worldly super power that has to come into existence around the time of the wounding of Rome. Somewhere around 1780, or to be more specific 1776, this beast is to have two heads, or a division of power (could be the north and south from the Civil War, it could also be the two political powers Republican and Democrat, or it could mean the House and the Senate), but more significant is that it has NO CROWNS, or no kings. I believe that we are the first country to be founded that has never had a king, even if some guys want to think they are one. This beast is to start out as a lamb, or basically a Christian country and then it turns into a dragon, or becomes quite unchristian. The authority of this beast is given back to the first beast, and this second beast is the beast the entire world wonders after and does such things as calling down fire from the heavens. This is also the beast that will enforce the mark. The only other signs given to man that the end is here are the terrible disasters that will be on the rise, and destruction of our natural habitat, Inflation, cost of living, mainly from mans interference with nature and mans greed.

Now real quick, cause I can hear it coming already, what about what Christ said about the Abomination of Desolation. Well in answer to that Christ was asked two questions, 1) what is the sign of the end of an age, 2) what is the sign of your return. The AofD was something that related to an end of an age, that was the end of the age where the Jews were the chosen people of God and the age of the gentiles began. That age ended in 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem, the Christians of that day new of this event and when they saw the Roman Conquerors heraldry in the temple, they split to the hills as instructed by Christ. While the rest of the city was being decimated by the Romans, and the remaining Jews made captive or killed, the Christians managed to all get out before that occurred.

So even though this was just a quick brush over without any notes in front of me, which school of prophecy do you think?

IMHO there is really only one that fits the world and the way things have come down the pike from day one. Rome really never ended, but passed on its power until it was removed from being a political/religious power, and the atrocities of the Christians under that form of government are more then well documented. Not only in such things as the crusades, but also with the persecution of all other forms of Christian religion (the persecution of the saints = the inquisition ). There is only one form that shows that there would be another superpower to follow Rome that one would call down fire from the heavens (atom bomb), the whole world would wonder after it (whether you hate us or admire us, you all do sure talk about us, want to visit, or live here), that would give its authority back to Rome (well there are entire sites that document the similarity between the two countries so no need in me rehashing those, but just a few: Both republics, and our legal system comes from Roman law, there are even threads here that tell how the US might have at some point, and might still be, owned by the City of London and Vatican City), and would enforce the mark (Real ID, something still to come, cannot say, but its in the works).

BTW check what the founder of your church believed and I bet it’s the same thing. About 90% of original protestant religious founders believed in Historicism.








[edit on 10/18/2005 by defcon5]

Bravo, defcon5!

That was a most interesting read and you did an excellent job on almost all of it - even without notes.

Unfortunately, I failed to provide you with enough of my beliefs to allow you to understand or correctly "classify" me. First of all, I had to smile at being "accused" of being Catholic. I do not even believe in the divinity of the "Jesus" of the Christian faith so, I am in no way Christian. For the sake of brevity, let's just say that I am a Dieist - not exactly but, close enough for this discussion.

My point of view is much more aligned with the Historical-Critical Interpretation found here among many other places

I can see that I also failed to point out that I don't consider the Revelation of St. John the Divine to be prophetic and I doubt very much that it was intended to be taken to be prophesy (unlike Daniel, which I believe was so intended). Simply put, I think the Revelations writings were meant to be an immediate and short-term "heads-up" to the seven churches as to what dangers they were likely to face within a very short time-frame - like the next 3-5 years.

Does it not make sense that the most difficult to understand book in the Christian NT is likely to be the most easily misunderstood? What I see happening with Revelations today is precisely the reason given for excluding it from canonization - it should not have been included and most certainly should not have been placed at the end because so many people would think it was some sort of prophecy. Now that we are centuries removed from the context in which it was written and the audience for which it was intended, we come this silly nonsense with everyone trying to guess who is this Anti-Christ, is he among us, are we near the end of days, etc.???

End days anticipation is a very old "tradition" among so many religions. I guess it was the very next thing to be pondered after they made up all the legends about how man was created - how will he finally end? It's a most natural dichotomous thought process. What I find to be relevant and a little scary in the world, especially the USA, is how many Christians are fervently hoping that they will be around to witness the end! Almost to the point where they would act to hasten it if they only could. Sound silly? If you want silly, just check out all the Rapturitis going around! End days / End times fanatics were among those that were the earliest to flock to the message of all the false Messiahs and the Jesus of the Christians was merely the most successful of these.

Can we conclude that the tittalation that "you, yes you! might be here to see the end of the world!" is one of the most exciting "marketing strategies" in history?

OK, I'll stop by saying now that this Revelations thing was much closer to a "letter-to-the-editor" than any kind of divinely inspired prophecy and can only be correctly categorized as prophetic by looking at it as a "repackaging" of Daniel, at best.

Originally posted by Al Davison

Unfortunately, I failed to provide you with enough of my beliefs to allow you to understand or correctly "classify" me. First of all, I had to smile at being "accused" of being Catholic.

I said it was a guess, just based on the logic of the school that you seemed to be in support of… No harm meant so hopefully no foul.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I can see that I also failed to point out that I don't consider the Revelation of St. John the Divine to be prophetic and I doubt very much that it was intended to be taken to be prophesy (unlike Daniel, which I believe was so intended). Simply put, I think the Revelations writings were meant to be an immediate and short-term "heads-up" to the seven churches as to what dangers they were likely to face within a very short time-frame - like the next 3-5 years.

Does it not make sense that the most difficult to understand book in the Christian NT is likely to be the most easily misunderstood? What I see happening with Revelations today is precisely the reason given for excluding it from canonization - it should not have been included and most certainly should not have been placed at the end because so many people would think it was some sort of prophecy. Now that we are centuries removed from the context in which it was written and the audience for which it was intended, we come this silly nonsense with everyone trying to guess who is this Anti-Christ, is he among us, are we near the end of days, etc.???

Well this is a somewhat Praeteristic view of eschatology in that the time period that you speak of would encompass the same teaching as those surrounding the time of Nero. Hence my misunderstanding that you were of that school of thought.

That being said though, the problem with Praeteristim is that Christ himself told of the time of his second coming, and a terrible time of trouble. Revelations does cover that ground even if it’s a bit farther back in the book then the part that everyone seems to fixate upon (the beasts, the mark, and the 144000). Ever wonder why folks fixate on those parts so much?

I’ll tell you why. It’s for the exact reasons I stated above, they are the sign posts that most following Futurism like to follow to be able to tell when they are in the last 7 year period. This is so against what is written elsewhere, that no-one will know the exact time or date, that it’s laughable to think anyone believes it. I mean if I see these events happen I know exactly is going to occur in 3.5 years, and the 3.5 years after that, right?
It falls under what I consider to be hypocritical, “I want to believe I am a good Christian, but I also want to know exact dates and times so I only have to waste 3.5 years behaving and being a good boy”, philosophy.

So, anyway Christ obviously did not return while Nero ruled, and the Judgment did not occur at that point either, so this view of eschatology has a few flaws in it already. Then there is the 5th level of the statue in Daniels vision, and the obvious continuity between the fourth beast of Daniel and the first beast of Revelations. Revelations must therefore pick up from the point that Daniel left off and go on to cover the actions of these last two beasts, one which was in existence while John of Patamos was alive and one yet to come.

Let’s just look at the little horn for a second, its states that this entity would be a tremendous persecutor of the saints, or Christians. Who, throughout history, has ever wholesale slaughtered Christians? The answer is the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. I have read that if it was ever know how many protestant Christians were tortured to death as heretics, that the number drastically outweighs the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. To be honest compared to the tactics (sawing, draw and quartering, impaling, flaying, burning, to name a few) used in the Inquisitions’ Tortures; I bet most Christians would have rather faced the Nazi’s torments. So this time frame must extend beyond 3 to 5 years since the death toll and the form of torture had not hit an all time high during Nero’s reign, and actually went on for hundreds of years beyond that point.

The mark is another good indication that this refers to a further point in the future, as until the advent of computers and technology such as the RFID, there was NO WAY to control a mans ability to buy or sell. If nothing else back then, a barter system could always be used to gain what was needed to survive. Now with the advent of the RFID, are we finally in a position to make a man submit to such a system of control. With a unique ID on every product made, and a system to track where that product goes and is used; only now can a person be spied upon to such an extent to ensure that you are not aiding and abetting the unmarked enemy, or setting up a barter system with someone you should not be.

As to your remark about the antichrist, yeah I agree this is silly. I am not sure if I made this clear in my post, but the antichrist is anyone that is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Paul mentions that there are many that were alive and well in his day and times. Now as to the little horn I believe I have covered that sufficiently that you should get the idea that it is a line of men, a position, and not any one single man. This is also not the antichrist, but it may be AN antichrist..

Originally posted by Al Davison
End days anticipation is a very old "tradition" among so many religions. I guess it was the very next thing to be pondered after they made up all the legends about how man was created - how will he finally end? It's a most natural dichotomous thought process. What I find to be relevant and a little scary in the world, especially the USA, is how many Christians are fervently hoping that they will be around to witness the end! Almost to the point where they would act to hasten it if they only could. Sound silly? If you want silly, just check out all the Rapturitis going around! End days / End times fanatics were among those that were the earliest to flock to the message of all the false Messiahs and the Jesus of the Christians was merely the most successful of these.

The fact that people have always been able to point to their life time and say that we are in the end times also is a point of proof of Historicism. Historicism says right up front that the end times started 3.5 years after the death of Christ and goes on until it ends… So there are going to be signs in every man’s lifetime. I cannot however see it going on past 7999 years (or the 7th day) personally, but that is my personal opinion, based on various things and I cannot prove that.

As to the Rapture and those fanatical about it, as a Christian you should be glad that the return of Christ is imminent, but to think that you are going to be whisked away and not suffer any seems like wishful thinking to me. It is true that the Church is not supposed to have to go through the wrath of God, but there are plenty of tribulations that have to occur between now and then. The whole Rapture mindset is one that comes solely from those that believe in Futurism to begin with. Even when I studied Futurism, I leaned to the post tribulation rapture side, which is inline with what historicists believe anyway. There is to be one judgment and one time Christ collects his people, if you miss that you are seriously in a world of hurt. Some Futurists truly believe that there are multiple raptures. I think this even comes up in the “Left Behind” series of books, that there is one for this group and another for that group and so on, as if it says in the Bible that Christ is running some kind of shuttle service or something. It all goes against the parable of the Bridegroom and the Bridesmaids. Basically when he comes you best be ready to move out, or you get left out.




[edit on 10/18/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
I said it was a guess, just based on the logic of the school that you seemed to be in support of… No harm meant so hopefully no foul.

Absolutely, no foul! I am truly interested in what you are saying and I appreciate the way you are expressing yourself. You are obviously quite a bit better read and studied on this issue than am I but, we are approaching it from different belief systems. I like that!

Well this is a somewhat Praeteristic view of eschatology in that the time period that you speak of would encompass the same teaching as those surrounding the time of Nero. Hence my misunderstanding that you were of that school of thought.

I can see how you would draw that conclusion and I cannot argue against that even if I don't see myself quite like that...I'll see if I can explain further along.

...Christ himself told of the time of his second coming, and a terrible time of trouble. ... everyone seems to fixate upon (the beasts, the mark, and the 144000). Ever wonder why folks fixate on those parts so much?

I'm not wholly convinced that Jesus made this claim but that is based solely upon my general distrust of the words that the NT writers placed in his mouth that were later mistranslated/misinterpreted. I cannot take a firm position on this but it just does not "feel right" based on so many contradictions.

But, yes! I am baffled at the fixation on this stuff - particularly at the expense of other portions of Christianity that seem so much more clear and definite. Besides, as you have pointed out, if Christians believe so deeply in all these parts, how can they ignore the very central point that they will be surprised and never "see it coming"?

So, anyway Christ obviously did not return while Nero ruled, and the Judgment did not occur at that point either, so this view of eschatology has a few flaws in it already.

OK, here's where I find some fault with this idea. I cannot ignore the fact that the writer of Revelations simply had this wrong. There was never going to be a Second Coming event. I am certain we will part ways over this because you are a Christian and I am not. I do not believe that we have seen a First Coming because I do not accept that, if there ever really is to be a Messiah, we have seen that Messiah on earth. I don't accept that Jesus was sent by God. So, this is where it becomes so very divergent that we may not be able to continue - I don't know. I hope we can but I can see where this could be the big "show stopper". Really, all along, I've been approaching this from an historical and socialogical point of view, only - not a religious one.

Let’s just look at the little horn for a second, its states that this entity would be a tremendous persecutor of the saints, or Christians. Who, throughout history, has ever wholesale slaughtered Christians? The answer is the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church.

Certainly, you'll get no argument from me that one of the main persecuting bodies of Christians have been other Christians. (Though I use the term Christian here only because each of these groups claimed that title for themselves - I make no judgement as to the validity of their claims.)

...technology such as the RFID...

While I can agree that the implanted RFID chips in both products and people can be put to nefarious uses (as well as for good), I cannot see this as biblical or fullfillment of prophecy.

As to your remark about the antichrist, yeah I agree this is silly.... This is also not the antichrist, but it may be AN antichrist.

Yes, we certainly agree on that point!

The "Rapturization" of Evangelical Christiandom, almost exclusively a USA phenomena, is both literally and figuratively, beyond belief! The widespread adoption of Darby's fantasy has done more harm to Christianity than any outside influence since the end of the Dark Ages. Perhaps, Christians should be asking if Darby was the "Little Horn"...just a passing thought.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Al Davison]

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by Al Davison
Absolutely, no foul! I am truly interested in what you are saying and I appreciate the way you are expressing yourself. You are obviously quite a bit better read and studied on this issue than am I but, we are approaching it from different belief systems. I like that!

Well thank you, and I also enjoy discussing such topics with those of different points of view. Heck I enjoy discussing it period. The only problem is that it's a subject that can become quite detailed and time consuming, and I do not always have the time to do it justice.

The biggest thing that I worry about is when someone gets insulted or takes this personally. I generally never take anything that personal, and if someone does not agree with me then so be it. I don’t get bent out of shape, I defend my perspective and move along. I have seen this happen in other threads though, and the religious ones can be pretty heated, enough so that I often avoid them (often just because I do not have the time to get involved in them). There is nothing I hate more then to type out a comment on a belief and get back a post with a thousand bible verses and no explanation what the writer is expecting me to see in them; as if I have not read those verses before and am supposed to have a sudden epiphany that is going to make me change what I believe. I think that anyone that has been around ATS for a while has seen this kind of thing happen, usually right before a moderator dumps it to BTS.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I can see how you would draw that conclusion and I cannot argue against that even if I don't see myself quite like that...I'll see if I can explain further along.

Perhaps you destined to create a new school of eschatology…lol
But either way the general belief that the events of the prophetic verse’s of the bible where intended as lessons to those going through a tribulation in the writers time period, tends to match up with the precepts of Praeterism. There are of course many subdivisions within those divisions, such Futurism having groups that believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture, Post-Tribulation Rapture, Mid-Tribulation Rapture, and Millennilists.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I'm not wholly convinced that Jesus made this claim but that is based solely upon my general distrust of the words that the NT writers placed in his mouth that were later mistranslated/misinterpreted. I cannot take a firm position on this but it just does not "feel right" based on so many contradictions.

Since none of us where alive then to hear exactly what was said or its context, and since there are some conflicting stories, many of which came from those that had a vested interest one way or the other in the divinity of Christ, it is strictly something that must be taken on faith. I mean sure, you can find stories that conflict with the Biblical version, but just as often or not you can also find that they were written by someone that had an agenda, just as much as people claim that writers of the books of the disciples had an agenda. If you choose to believe one of these other books, you have to take it just as much on faith in someone’s word and second hand information, as a Christian does to believe what is said in the Bible. There is pretty much nothing anyone can say that is going to change your faith or doubt in certain things, once you have made up your mind about it, in the absence of overwhelming proof one way or the other.

Originally posted by Al Davison
But, yes! I am baffled at the fixation on this stuff - particularly at the expense of other portions of Christianity that seem so much more clear and definite.

That might be a good topic for another thread. Find out what it is that attracts so many people to be interested in this topic, and especially the antichrist and the mark, though I doubt that most people will give you as honest an answer on it as I did. What initially interested me when I was young, in a nutshell, was fear and self-centeredness. That is not to say that this is still my reasoning, now it more like working out a puzzle, maybe even more habit, but I think that I have the original reasons in check for the most part…lol.

What truly puzzles me are the non-Christians, like yourself that find this topic interesting. It was once told to me that, “a mans greatest obsession was that which he most feared”. I am not saying it is your reason, but it’s an interesting question anyway.

Originally posted by Al Davison
as you have pointed out, if Christians believe so deeply in all these parts, how can they ignore the very central point that they will be surprised and never "see it coming"?

The way that the Futurists place the surprise aspect back into the mix is through the Rapture. As according to them you can tell roughly when the end times start, exactly when the tribulation starts, and should know exactly when it all ends, but the rapture itself is their big moment that no-one knows the time and date of.

The word Rapture never even appears in the bible, and there are only about two or three quotes that Futuists can point to and say it is even in the bible at all. The following ones I can recall off my sleeve, and I believe this is all of them, but there might be one or two more that someone else can add.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

These two are obviously the same quote from two different books:

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, here's where I find some fault with this idea. I cannot ignore the fact that the writer of Revelations simply had this wrong. There was never going to be a Second Coming event. I am certain we will part ways over this because you are a Christian and I am not. I do not believe that we have seen a First Coming because I do not accept that, if there ever really is to be a Messiah, we have seen that Messiah on earth. I don't accept that Jesus was sent by God. So, this is where it becomes so very divergent that we may not be able to continue - I don't know. I hope we can but I can see where this could be the big "show stopper". Really, all along, I've been approaching this from an historical and socialogical point of view, only - not a religious one.

Well it’s not really a show stopper for me, but it makes explaining anything more dependant on your ability to accept that there are certain things that a believer is just going to accept based on faith. It does not mean that I will not answer you to the best of my ability, but sometimes there are going to be a few subjects that there is never going to be solid proof of one way or the other and must be taken strictly on faith, one of those subjects is the divinity of Christ (I don’t have a blood test to show he was the son of God and you don’t have one to show he was not). The best I can base this on is the fulfillment that Christ made of the prophecies of the Old Testament and even of some of the psudapigraphial books.

However on the other hand there are a few protestant religious that I believe do not believe that Christ was in fact God, but rather a separate entity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses is one that comes to mind right off the bat.

Originally posted by Al Davison
While I can agree that the implanted RFID chips in both products and people can be put to nefarious uses (as well as for good), I cannot see this as biblical or fullfillment of prophecy.

Well nothing is inherently evil in itself; it’s the way it’s used that can make it an evil. When I started reading on the mark I realized that it has to really only do a couple things to be considered the mark. IT has to:
1) Be put in place by the second beast of Revelation.
2) Control an individual’s ability to deal in commerce.
3) Involve your hand or your head, or both.

Well the RIFD with finger print data and/or retina information is the first thing that is going to be able to meet all those criteria. If you refuse in this country to get the Real-ID, passed this last year, by 2008 you are considered a non-person to the federal government. You are basically no longer a legal citizen of this country in their eyes.

This basically means that you will be unable to pay taxes, get a drivers license (esp. since that is the ID), receive social security, medical insurance, you pretty much name it. If you are arrested without one, then the patriot act laws are in effect on you as though you are a non-US Citizen. You will have no government protections and no rights; they can pretty much do with you as they please. In the interim you can basically go wonder the streets and exist as a homeless person, until you’re arrested, if this act is not repealed and you have an objection to getting this card. Even more scary is that the US seems to be putting the spurs to other countries to follow suit since 911, the UK passed their version of the Real-ID the same week that we did, and both Mexico and Canada are set up to hook into the database as well. I am sure that there are even more countries that are similarly following suit.

So lets say you decide to not get one of these, how will you work to feed yourself or support a family? How would you pay your taxes on property? Even if you had no family/property and could live off the land fairly well, where could you go? All the big forests are patrolled by such people as the DNR, you cannot even light a campfire in most of those places without a permit.

I think he is just too stupid to be the anti-Christ. To me he is rather the puppet of a group of anti-Christs who control him. You know, God protects the mentally-ill. And after the telling to the people of the USA two different reasons for the war in Iraq it really makes me think that he suffers from schizophrenia. Well, his "masters" cannot put all the words he says into his mouth plus it is insanely stupid to lie to what?-295,734,134 people and think you can get away with telling them another story next time you show up on TV. Actually he did get away with that, which brings some thoughts about the intelligence level of the mass of Americans, but that's another thing. He certainly will not be remembered in history as the leader who fought terrorism! I would rather put him just next to Pres. Truman- one of them likes dropping Atomic bombs, the other one likes looking for them!

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Dessi_Bulgaria]

Didn't nostradomus(sp?) state that the statrt of WW3 or the end of the world would be someone from the west(america) wearing a blue robe or garb(in direct ref to republican)? I looked this up a while back but not sure exactly what or where it was in his books.

Originally posted by LucyStoner76
That's a bit of an insult to the Antichrist!

An Antichrist perhaps, but not the Antichrist... (An Antichrist, in that he displayes characteristics that are exactly opposite of those that are supposed to describe a Christ consciousness...

Many also believe, myself included, that Bush is far too simple minded to actually be the biblical Antichrist.

The biblical Antichrist is supposed to be charming, well-spoken and charismatic. Not exactly a perfect match. He's far from being an eloquent speaker, and he's only managed to charm about half of America, much less a majority of the whole world.

The closest quote that comes to lining up the Antichrist with Bush is something to the effect of "In the name of peace, he shall destroy many."

Well, if it were just that one quote we had to go by I might be inclined to agree that Bush is the Antichrist, but there are a lot more puzzle pieces that don't fit.

Not to mention, everytime a public figure rises who irks at least two people during their career, they are rumored to be the Antichrist. Hitler, a Pope or two, Ronald Regan...


I'd be more inclined to believe the other public figure who's name seems to be mentioned in conjunction with the Antichrist lately, you know, that Governator fellow, is one to watch... >

I think it's funny you say that President Bush is far too simple minded to be the anti-christ. Here is a guy that managed to become the governor of Texas and then go on to be the President of the USA for 8 years and you say he is simple minded. Yet you haven't accomplished Jack sh*t. So what does this say about you and your opinion?

i read a while back some guy that follows Nostrodamus mentioned the antichrist was called NABUS . perhaps the translation means BUSH. so maybe there is some truth in this prophecy.

Originally posted by bretmania

i read a while back some guy that follows Nostrodamus mentioned the antichrist was called NABUS . perhaps the translation means BUSH. so maybe there is some truth in this prophecy.

I found the below in realation to that:

"It was very interesting to read in the Hogue Prophecy Archive, 4 June 2001 ["Who will be Mabus?" www.hogueprophecy.com...], the way you tried to decode the name Mabus to try to find out who Mabus could be. But in all your decodings you did not try another possibility. If you take the first two letters of Mabu, that is "Ma", and rotate them 180 degrees, and then you mirror the turned around "a" you will get "gW", then you add "bus", the resulting name is "gWbus". Rotate 180 deg. "Ma" you get "pW", then you mirror "p" and turn it into "g", add "bus" and you get gWbus. The president of the United States is George W. Bush, and in Latin languages the "h" is silent, so it would be "George W. Bus", you use only the inititial of the first name, and you get "GWBUS". Don't you think this is another possibity?"

Source: www.rense.com...


More Misc:

His story, briefly, involves the White Turban leader, the dominant force of the Middle East around the time of Halley's Comet. He will be overthrown by the Blue Turban leader, also known as the third antichrist, who is presumably named "Perse" with two followers named "Alus" and "Mabus." The three together, still in the Middle East, set off World War III, and thus the destruction of Earth.

Perse makes me think of Persephone the Destroyer of Light that sits high atop the US Capital. However the French translation is the following:
1. 1 Persian, Iran, Persia
2. 2 Persia/Iran

So Perse/Alus/Mabus whote and blue I guess more research would be needed to see if they are all just vague reffrences...



Further on as to the bible's claim of adding up 666 in Hebrew the simplest form is translated to WSM (M being mem used as the last letter only to hold numeric value of 600. Vowels hold no numeric value so that could be a combonation of names. I always hoped of a program that would run every combonation to show total values of name 666. Than you would have to than run translations and variables for vowels but it would be no doubt an interesting list to look at.


[edit on 9-11-2005 by japike]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by japike]

Originally posted by Becon of Light

Originally posted by geekboy
One more thing what evidence do you have that bush was doing the nose candy after all beacon you accursed me of the same thing
[edit on 15-10-2005 by geekboy]

Evidence?? ever hear of that thing called the news? he was a walking scandal even when his Daddy was president.. and vice president if i remember right.. and in 1976 he was arrested for drunk driving.. you want evidence of that too? look it up.. it is a matter of public record

and i said dont blame clinton for smoking pot when bush was doing coke.. i accept that both took drugs.. but your tryng to put it all on clinton

Ahh....but did Bush inhale??

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Megan Schulz, a journalism major at Colorado State, ponders the question if Bush is the Anti-christ based on his actions and numerology. She concludes that she would have to research the claim a lot more, before she became a "true believer".

 

www.collegian.com
I have a dear friend who strongly believes President Bush is the anti-Christ and the recent natural disasters and hurricanes are signs of the impending apocalypse. When she mentioned that she was considering stocking up on canned goods and weapons to be prepared, I laughed aloud and resisted the urge to label her as a lunatic. Instead, I Googled her bold claim and discovered many other people believe the same thing. I found a particularly interesting Web site that connects Bush in numerous ways to "666" or the mark of the devil.

If Bush were as religious and Christ-loving as he claims to be, he probably wouldn't have done many of the things he has. He probably wouldn't even be president at all. For me, the general take-away message of the Bible is to love your neighbor and dedicate yourself to God. A rich, power-hungry, war-endorsing politician doesn't exactly fit the bill.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Is there's a severe mental sickness in society when people actually deem it necessary to raise these questions, and then spend the time in researching it? Do people really feel so much hate in them or directed at them to project these labels?

It seems such a ridiculous question, but many young adults and college kids are thinking that the answer is, "Yes, Bush is the Anti-christ."


These type of shirts are big sellers on campus

Related News Links:

www.covenantnews.com
isbushantichrist.blogspot.com
www.bushisantichrist.com


[edit on 11-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Bush is NOT Christian:
journals.aol.com...

He is AN antichrist. But he isn't IT.
He is a forshadow of the antichrist and America is a foreshadow of Babylon that falls in Rev 18ish...
America is going to fall before the tribulation, so that the NWO can take over as Babylon.. and Bush will have to come out of power for the final Antichrist/Beast/little horn to be revealed/manifested