Has Satan Taken Over The Vatican, Is The End of Times Near?

reply to post by randyvs


I would never dream of underestimating the education of a fellow member.

I agree with you OP. Though I can understand the scepticism of other's such as AfterInfinity. In the end, people are free to believe what they wish to believe. That's their right. I'm not the kind of person to push my beliefs on another. Especially since I don't have tangible proof of God or Satan's existence.

A couple of other posters have brought up the possibility of Turkson becoming Pope. An interesting fact about Turkson is that in his home village of Wassa Nsuta, his nickname is "Peter the Roman". And as it stands, he has a 5-1 chance of being elected. There are other candidates with a better chance of becoming Pope (Bertone comes to mind), but he has a shot.

I guess we will simply have to wait and see.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by zyrktec

 

catholic religion is a false religion. designed and built by satan himself, so why ask the question?

Wouldn't that technically mean "Satan" is false too?

A resounding YES from my corner of observance.

I'm sorry but praying to a god that's not God himself is a sin. Praying FOR someone or something isn't a sin, unless it's done out of malice. But praying to other entities is not praying to God, and they don't have the power to answer prayers.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Since you're asking the question, is Satan running the Vatican, the answer would be yes, because clearly God is not all about not only raping thousands upon thousands of children and at the same time covering it all up. All the while, this is just the surface of evil that the Vatican is involved with, I mean, lets just look at history and all the "holy wars" and death upon the "non believers".

So it's not like Satan just took command of the Vatican, he's probably been in power since its inception all the while fooling the world that he doesn't exist.

i think you can prove satan exists by first establishing the link between ancient egypt and mesopotamia via their shared history and word usage. both egyptian hieratic and hebrew were missing most vowels and share similar root word etymology. it's pretty evident the exodus occured during the hyksos expulsion and that many things about torah, written by moses, would be more understandable if viewed from the perspective that moses was raised as an egyptian royal. these two cultures are intimately entangled with each other, off and on through out the torah.

if you follow the connections between biblical nimrod and egyptian narmer, you learn he was the first pharaoh of post black sea flood egypt, and the first post flood pharaoh to hold the title osiris, upon death. this is established in several ways including the texts on the shabaka stone. once you know the identity and story of osiris you learn about an evil guy named
SET. set had a temple in egypt, called, unremarkably, the temple of set.

the temple of set is what jesus means when he refers to the pharisees and saducees to be the synagogue of satan.

the etymology is, SET (the serpent god) + AN.
AN is the sumerian-akkadian ANU,, who was the head god of the sumerian divine council, also referred to as heavenly father.

to determine who satan was, you merely have to follow the trail of clues. who was the brother of narmer / nimrod (he was also called enmerkar in akkad). and is satan also a mesopotamian figure? yep, he was.

satan was the accuser. according to the new testament, the accuser was the law. but which law? why is it we never hear of this word "satan" in text, before the time of king david (there's a reason but i don't want to talk about that yet)

let's back track to the three main guys in the sumerian divine council.

there was ANU=Heavenly Father
and EN.LIL=Lord of the Command
and EN.KI=Creator of humans and various other lifeforms on Earth

EN meant LORD. LIL meant Air, Storms, Sky

EN.LIL was the god who cursed man's flesh with a shortened life span and decreed the flood. He was presumably the god who gave Moses the law at Mt. Sinai.

So EN.LIL was the god of storms, who was this guy
en.wikipedia.org...

Enlil (nlin), 𒂗𒇸 (EN = Lord + LÍL = Storm, "Lord (of the) Storm")

So we've established that EN.LIL the accuser is referred to in EGYPT as SET.
Why was SET figured in the old testament of the bible as a god powerful enough
to decree the flood and give the law to Moses?

This is a complicated thing but if there's a temple of set in egypt and if set is enlil, then
there must be a mesopotamian equivalent, and of course, there is. enlil had temples erected to him in ancient sumer, akkad and babylon. in fact, the name LIL in EN.LIL is the generic god word in mesopotamia, laying the foundation for its usage in words like EL.

if you're a christian, youre probably scratching your head right about now. i just want you to stop and consider the difference between jesus' approach to humanity and the old testament. and those moments in the old testament where jehovah actually appears to like humans. i believe this is because there are 3 different jehovahs/yahweh's interacting with humans in the old testament. one is like the prosecuting attorney (enlil) and one is like the defense attorney (enki). what are they prosecuting and defending? human beings. enki defended humans because he created them. he saved them from the flood. enlil prosecuted humans because they were on his planet and he didn't much like them, in fact, he pretty much hated them.

so how does this prove satan was real? well if you know that narmer was real, and that he was called osiris, then you just need to search out who his brother was. since he was also known as enmerkar and nimrod, surely one of those will tell you who the synagogue of satan leader at the time of nimrod was, who would be the founder of the temple of set in egypt and thus jesus' reference to the synagogue of satan, aka the temple of set.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thank you for all your time and effort putting all of this together. l found it very interesting and thought provoking. lnteresting times we are living in, Peace starchild.

Maybe the pope and who ever else in the vatican made all this up and threw it out to the public. The stupid people ran with and it snow balled to where we are today talking about this silly prophecy. They probably sat back a laughed. Anything that comes out of the vatican is all lies. Hey st Malachy had a vision well maybe they just wrote them all down and went with the play book to give credence.

Originally posted by undo
i think you can prove satan exists by first establishing the link between ancient egypt and mesopotamia via their shared history and word usage. both egyptian hieratic and hebrew were missing most vowels and share similar root word etymology. it's pretty evident the exodus occured during the hyksos expulsion and that many things about torah, written by moses, would be more understandable if viewed from the perspective that moses was raised as an egyptian royal. these two cultures are intimately entangled with each other, off and on through out the torah.

if you follow the connections between biblical nimrod and egyptian narmer, you learn he was the first pharaoh of post black sea flood egypt, and the first post flood pharaoh to hold the title osiris, upon death. this is established in several ways including the texts on the shabaka stone. once you know the identity and story of osiris you learn about an evil guy named
SET. set had a temple in egypt, called, unremarkably, the temple of set.

the temple of set is what jesus means when he refers to the pharisees and saducees to be the synagogue of satan.

the etymology is, SET (the serpent god) + AN.
AN is the sumerian-akkadian ANU,, who was the head god of the sumerian divine council, also referred to as heavenly father.

to determine who satan was, you merely have to follow the trail of clues. who was the brother of narmer / nimrod (he was also called enmerkar in akkad). and is satan also a mesopotamian figure? yep, he was.

satan was the accuser. according to the new testament, the accuser was the law. but which law? why is it we never hear of this word "satan" in text, before the time of king david (there's a reason but i don't want to talk about that yet)

let's back track to the three main guys in the sumerian divine council.

there was ANU=Heavenly Father
and EN.LIL=Lord of the Command
and EN.KI=Creator of humans and various other lifeforms on Earth

EN meant LORD. LIL meant Air, Storms, Sky

EN.LIL was the god who cursed man's flesh with a shortened life span and decreed the flood. He was presumably the god who gave Moses the law at Mt. Sinai.

So EN.LIL was the god of storms, who was this guy
en.wikipedia.org...

Enlil (nlin), 𒂗𒇸 (EN = Lord + LÍL = Storm, "Lord (of the) Storm")

So we've established that EN.LIL the accuser is referred to in EGYPT as SET.
Why was SET figured in the old testament of the bible as a god powerful enough
to decree the flood and give the law to Moses?

This is a complicated thing but if there's a temple of set in egypt and if set is enlil, then
there must be a mesopotamian equivalent, and of course, there is. enlil had temples erected to him in ancient sumer, akkad and babylon. in fact, the name LIL in EN.LIL is the generic god word in mesopotamia, laying the foundation for its usage in words like EL.

if you're a christian, youre probably scratching your head right about now. i just want you to stop and consider the difference between jesus' approach to humanity and the old testament. and those moments in the old testament where jehovah actually appears to like humans. i believe this is because there are 3 different jehovahs/yahweh's interacting with humans in the old testament. one is like the prosecuting attorney (enlil) and one is like the defense attorney (enki). what are they prosecuting and defending? human beings. enki defended humans because he created them. he saved them from the flood. enlil prosecuted humans because they were on his planet and he didn't much like them, in fact, he pretty much hated them.

so how does this prove satan was real? well if you know that narmer was real, and that he was called osiris, then you just need to search out who his brother was. since he was also known as enmerkar and nimrod, surely one of those will tell you who the synagogue of satan leader at the time of nimrod was, who would be the founder of the temple of set in egypt and thus jesus' reference to the synagogue of satan, aka the temple of set.

Sounds like a bunch of bovine excreement to me....

If you would have said "I have met satan" then I might give a very small amount of credence, but quoting out of any written book gets you now where with me.

reply to post by RobertF


well you do realize that narmer was the founder of the post black sea flood egyptian pharaonic dynasty, right? that's accepted history.

and if you compare him to enmerkar, who was in an akkadian text called ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARRATA, who was apparently an architect who knew how to build large temple structures (such as temple of inana)

and if you understand that inana is isis and that she was married to enmerkar, also known as narmer in egypt and nimrod in the biblical texts, and that the tower of babel story is mentioned in the enmerkar text mentioned above. you can establish a trail for research on the subject.

if there is a satan i think he took over long ago, maybee its the other way around and he very recently let go of the reigns

Wow, check this out. There may be something to this. I'm not usually into these religious conspiracies, but this is interesting. According to the OP, it says the "satanic" Pope will be named Peter and signs point to Pope Benedict being the last true pope.

Look who's in the running to be the next pope:
online.wsj.com...

Those are the biggest picks for the next pope. One of them has the name of Peter.

Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson
Cardinal Turkson has addressed some of the church's most contentious positions, including its opposition to distributing condoms to curb HIV transmission. In 2007, he stirred controversy by saying the Catholic Church should counsel the faithful on whether condoms were the best option for fighting HIV. In 2010, the Vatican went on to refine its view, saying the use of condoms among homosexuals and heterosexuals was preferable to risking HIV infection.

Seasoned Vatican watchers have long spoken of Cardinal Turkson as the most likely to become the first African pope since Gelasius I in the late fifth century, and only the third African pope in history. But while Gelasius hailed from Africa's Mediterranean, a significant incubator of the early church, Cardinal Turkson comes from the Vatican's newest growth region: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ok. So there is a potential cardinal in the running named Peter. He's not from Rome, but his name IS peter. But what is the likelihood he will be the next pope?

According to many articles online, the Vatican is really pushing for the next Pope to be black, to "unify" the people like no other Pope ever has (sounds a lot like the description of the OP's "Antichrist." And this Cardinal Peter Turkson guy is black. See this article for example.
www.cnn.com...



So what are the chances this guy will be the next pope? Well according to my favorite online betting site, the bookmakers give Cardinal Peter Turkson the greatest odds of being the next Pope! And this site has been very good in the past for predicting things (bookmakers don't like to lose money.)
www.paddypower.com...

Originally posted by vonclod
if there is a satan i think he took over long ago, maybee its the other way around and he very recently let go of the reigns

sometimes i think these god guys are body hoppers. like all pharaohs were buried with the name osiris affixed to the front of their names.

I think the part about fire falling from the sky is interesting. Seems to be happening. Meteorite explodes in the sky over Russia, another spotted over San Francisco, and one crashed in Cuba.

reply to post by undo


reply to post by RobertF

f you would have said "I have met satan" then I might give a very small amount of credence, but quoting out of any written book gets you now where with me.

So you prefer rumor and urban legend then ?

Papa Emeritus is the antichrist

reply to post by Catalyst317


He's hilarious, but we shouldn't make fun of those who believe in God. JJ would hate to find out how wrong he was.

I found the thread interesting.
Well researched. SF.

If we can accept that consciousness can manifest and affect reality, then the very belief in satan has given such a concept reality. The focus falls apart when you start to anthropomorphize the concept. Just don't do it. Satan is the collective force of like energy (in this case negative energy) that humankind will always be in struggle with, so long as we maintain our existence in this time/space reality. Always. Times wax and wane and the scales tip, but they will always tip one way or another. Our briefs times of peace, where our positive polarity outshines at it's greatest, are just that. Brief periods of time the romantics pen to paper as golden ages when peace visited the Earth. A time lost and dreamed of obtaining again.

In order to get there. To that point. You first must fight the corruption, depravity, hate, greed, envy, and boastful pride that is the manifestation of "satan" seen in society today. Does anyone really think those things don't need to be dealt with in society today? Enough is enough. It's time to stop the madness, and this world is a mad world.

Toyohiko Kagawa who lived from 1888 to 1960 said this in Meditations:

"Those who thwart and destroy movements which spring from a conscience newly awakened are always the hangers-on of authority and of moneyed might. They are the so called maintainers of order. They manufacture justice to suit their own advantage and coerce the people in the name of God. And of all concerned, god Himself surely is the most embarrassed."

As another member so eloquently put it: Beware the ides of March.

And from St. Francis of Sales (1567-1622)

"It frequently happens that Satan puts us on the wrong scent: to distract us from achieving on thing he will suggest something seemingly better; then to prevent us from bringing this to perfection, he will hold out a third. He is quite content for us to make any number of beginnings as long as we never complete anything."

Prophecies can sometimes help keep things undone. It behooves the negative balance to keep the status quo. If the Church is infiltrated with corruption and satan truly reigns supreme in the papacy, they probably want that system that has been created to remain stable. They don't want prophecy to get to a point of critical mass awareness where situations are ripe for miracles to start manifesting in peoples desire to connect with spirituality. This will try to be subverted and if it goes as planned, should all be nipped in the bud by the end of March with a pope that is not associated with the name Peter. If it goes the other way, I'll be surprised, and expecting a struggle. If prophecy gets out of their hands and gains speed as it rolls down hill where revelations start unfolding (personal and biblical), it will get very very messy. It means they played their cards, one hand too many. Once it's on that course, they best be hitting their knees, because that means THEY are returning and those who served these baser negative emotions (satan) and caused harm, will deserve the spanking they'll be getting.

That's my take.

Peace,
Cirque

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You really didn't deserve that star that someone gave you. Your post is just a jab at OP and very disrespectful. I think you should apologise to TheOtherSideOfTheCoin.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's not about me

Exactly! So why have you trolled this thread for 2 pages?

ETA:reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


This is a good thread man. I often completely disagree with you about your world views but I hadn't heard about a lot of the info you presented here. I don't really believe in 'Satan' but the concept of a satanic rule(by those that do believe) is not an impossibity to me.