Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
3rd Antichrist?
Options
-
03-01-2015 9:32pm#1I am unsure about things like this said by Nostradamus and other such prophecies. But have got to thinking about what an anti-christ is supposed to be?
If one is the follow the meaning of it, it means someone who goes against Christ. That is Jesus. So, anyone (evil or not) from Christianity or Islam are excluded (even ISIS or Lord's Resistance Army). The two last so-called antichrists were named as Napoleon and Hitler, both who were not particularly religious and who separated church and state.
With that in mind, the third antichrist would follow suit. We see the cold shadow of atheism gaining acceptance all over the world and ironically many of the religious fanatics we see today have been the creation of atheists from the West back in the 1980s.
Many at the moment assume that the 3rd antichrist is Vladimir Putin. Putin fits the criteria to a degree: he is not particularly religious, presides over a rich/powerful country and is a strong leader. I say this is too convenient and if asked 2 years ago or so, it surely would have been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the then president of a poor country) and before that bin Laden and Saddam. NONE of these bar bin Laden have done anything worthy of comparison to Hitler. Plus as evil and all as bin Laden was, he is fighting in the name of god and his prophets so more warped pro-christ than anti.
So, the next antichrist has to meet the following criteria.
1. Emerge from a rich country: From either the West, Russia, China, Australia, Israel or Japan presumably.
2. Be atheist and against both Christianity and Islam. Can't be Jewish either as they are waiting for Christ. They just don't believe Jesus was Christ.
3. Have a name like MABUS or SUBAM. The latter was used for justifying Saddam as the 3rd antichrist I remember. But Saddam was not really religious, fought against religious extremists in his country but was not the leader of a powerful country.1
Comments
-
mod note: Touching heavily on various religions here - Keep in mind our forum charter when posting in this thread.0
-
Putin, the antichrist? .......'Heil Putler'?
The problem with your theory is the delusion of morality. I'm not saying you're delusional but we've all been conditioned to believe in the concept of Good vs Evil when there's really no evidence to support it.
Neither side of this conflict is right but I don't think it was unexpected Russia would feel threatened by the US and its NATO partners overthrowing the government in Ukraine using Fascist thugs and claiming it to be a democratic success.
Democracy for Anglo-American power is essentially just a government with Pro-American policies, a vassal state if you will. US don't actually give a hoot about the people as you can already see evidence how they treat American public in general.
On the Good vs Evil argument, let's say you were in Africa somewhere and a Lion decided to eat you, is that an act of evil? Or is the Lion just acting upon its instincts in order to survive?
The Lion doesn't see you and say "well, I'm not eating him, cause then his species will think I'm evil" more likely it's thinking "yep, that'll do me..kinda hungry"
Same could be said for a shark that might attack a human. There is no invisible hand keeping a balance between acts of perceived good and evil, however unfortunate that is.
There's just a choice we make but humans are smarter than shark or lion so we know that destruction of other species is detrimental to our own survival.
We're told the US is righteous force in the world and the 'Good' guy on the block when there's really no evidence to support it. Look at the innumerable wars waged by the US throughout its history, the annihilation of other cultures and tribes starting with Native Americans. Destruction of South America, Asia with Vietnam and Korea wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, propping up dictatorships in the Middle East and Arab peninsula.
Where is your evidence America is the 'Good' actor?
I'm not endorsing Putin or Russia, but it's obvious they aren't encroaching on America's borders with military equipment and personnel or deliberately overthrowing governments in proximity to them for their own vested interests.
I'm sorry but, calling Putin the antichrist is just falling for the propaganda published by western media. If anyone is responsible for Putin being in power and his popularity, it is US and its NATO allies who instead of trying to help Russia after the collapse of USSR thought it more appropriate to plunder its wealth at the expense of Russian people.
You also mention Iranian leader which is also laughable, these are people despised by western elites who aren't nice people at all.0 -
:rolleyes: Yes, one only need to look at the horror of Sweden and those other awful atheistic Scandinavian countries to see this 'cold shoulder', terrible state of affairs, to be sure.BuilderPlumber wrote: »We see the cold shadow of atheism gaining acceptance all over the world
Is being the anti-christ an unconscious role. Can one be the anti-christ whilst no knowing or realising it? Can one fulfil the role of the anti-christ and not know it? I alway thought the anti-christ was supposed to be a person actively and positively working against christ and gods. Is this not the case?BuilderPlumber wrote: »2. Be atheist and against both Christianity and Islam. Can't be Jewish either as they are waiting for Christ. They just don't believe Jesus was Christ.
MrP0 -
Lads, this is based on Nostradamus' quatrains
Cut out the religion bashing or big brother will intervene.0 -
Putin, the antichrist? .......'Heil Putler'?
The problem with your theory is the delusion of morality. I'm not saying you're delusional but we've all been conditioned to believe in the concept of Good vs Evil when there's really no evidence to support it.
Neither side of this conflict is right but I don't think it was unexpected Russia would feel threatened by the US and its NATO partners overthrowing the government in Ukraine using Fascist thugs and claiming it to be a democratic success.
Democracy for Anglo-American power is essentially just a government with Pro-American policies, a vassal state if you will. US don't actually give a hoot about the people as you can already see evidence how they treat American public in general.
On the Good vs Evil argument, let's say you were in Africa somewhere and a Lion decided to eat you, is that an act of evil? Or is the Lion just acting upon its instincts in order to survive?
The Lion doesn't see you and say "well, I'm not eating him, cause then his species will think I'm evil" more likely it's thinking "yep, that'll do me..kinda hungry"
Same could be said for a shark that might attack a human. There is no invisible hand keeping a balance between acts of perceived good and evil, however unfortunate that is.
There's just a choice we make but humans are smarter than shark or lion so we know that destruction of other species is detrimental to our own survival.
We're told the US is righteous force in the world and the 'Good' guy on the block when there's really no evidence to support it. Look at the innumerable wars waged by the US throughout its history, the annihilation of other cultures and tribes starting with Native Americans. Destruction of South America, Asia with Vietnam and Korea wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, propping up dictatorships in the Middle East and Arab peninsula.
Where is your evidence America is the 'Good' actor?
I'm not endorsing Putin or Russia, but it's obvious they aren't encroaching on America's borders with military equipment and personnel or deliberately overthrowing governments in proximity to them for their own vested interests.
I'm sorry but, calling Putin the antichrist is just falling for the propaganda published by western media. If anyone is responsible for Putin being in power and his popularity, it is US and its NATO allies who instead of trying to help Russia after the collapse of USSR thought it more appropriate to plunder its wealth at the expense of Russian people.
You also mention Iranian leader which is also laughable, these are people despised by western elites who aren't nice people at all.
I agree with all this.
First of all of course, the term 'antichrist' is often used for propaganda reasons by whichever entity wants to blacken its enemy. I for one never said America or the West in general has to be the 'good' side. We are sold that stuff by them when it wants to go to war. Saddam and Ahmadinejad, from very poor and weak nations, being threats to the world? Give me a break! In reality, the West has being doing so for years.
On the other side, I'm sure enemies of the West portrayed GW Bush as the antichrist and I remember he being called such. But as another poster said this is all just from Nostradamus and is a bit like saying Mad Max or Road Warrior is a prediction of a world war 3 based on oil in the future and then if the event occurred, bingo! Prediction! Nostradamus probably wrote futuristic fiction that was realistic enough too.
Chances are some event or some person will emerge to be likened to his 3 antichrists. But I am sure there have been far more than 3 antichrists if you take it to mean very evil people. Napoleon, Hitler and whoever is the current Western bogeyman suits the West overall (with possibly half of France and fringe far right parties disagreeing). Ask other places, they could come up with 3 others.0 -
Advertisement
-
:rolleyes: Yes, one only need to look at the horror of Sweden and those other awful atheistic Scandinavian countries to see this 'cold shoulder', terrible state of affairs, to be sure.
Is being the anti-christ an unconscious role. Can one be the anti-christ whilst no knowing or realising it? Can one fulfil the role of the anti-christ and not know it? I alway thought the anti-christ was supposed to be a person actively and positively working against christ and gods. Is this not the case?
MrP
It seems like the antichrist is someone who can gain power and present his evil agenda in a way that initially at least seems good for his people. Take a guy everyone agrees was either personally evil or definitely was the front for an evil movement: Hitler. The cold shadow of atheism I mean is far right organisations as well as far left extremists too. Think more North Korea than Sweden!!
The antichrist has to present himself as bigger and more powerful than god, has to fill that role and has to confront god. God stands in his way. Again, Hitler comes to mind. He assumed power in Germany and then picked off weaker parts of Europe. Then, he forms alliances with other fascists. Then, he takes aim at powerful countries. He thinks he and his supporters are totally invincible.
Now, many others have come and gone with such crazy ideologies. Pol Pot certainly was evil but confined to one poor SE Asian country. And there have been other mini-antichrists. But no one comparable to Hitler has risen to power since then. And we have had no WW3.
If we are to believe Nostradamus as fact, what happens is this evil leader emerges called Mabus and he gets killed early enough causing a major war that lasts 25 years.0 -
cold shadow of atheism?? you'll have to explain that one to me.0
-
-
BuilderPlumber wrote: »Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Il. Pol Pot. Neo Nazis. These type of people.
so a person who kills in the name of religion couldnt be the anti-christ? it has to be an atheist?
oh and btw you missed out two probably even bigger mass murderers in stalin and mao.0 -
they're just examples beano, ye didn't want him to name every dictator that ever lived did ye?0
-
Advertisement
-
It's not Putin, Obama fits the profile, he is a charismatic secretive man at the head of one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world, when he was elected he could have stopped the wars Bush Jr had started, does anyone know what faith Obama follows, on the basis of the Adolf Hitler and Napoleon comparisons Obama the so called leader of the free world fits the bill.0
-
BuilderPlumber wrote: »Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Il. Pol Pot. Neo Nazis. These type of people.
The Nazis were Christian, and North Korea mythologises - and arguably deifies - its leaders, revering the late Kim Il-Sung as the "Eternal President Of The Republic". It seems that none of the names referred to (or even Stalin or Mao) or their movements was defined by a non-belief in deities. Rather, their respective movements could be said to be defined by extreme ideology of a counter-rational, faith-based and cultish character (though maybe Pol Pot's less than the others).
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/
--> There's no "cold shadow of atheism".
Napoleon and Hitler were both apparently not only Christian (in Hitler's case, very publicly so) but Roman Catholic. Given that, and the fact that the biblical Satan is by definition a believer in God and in fact demonstrably a believer in Christ's divinity (ie he's a Christian), it seems that what you require is a highly persuasive but internationally belligerent political figure who at least claims to believe in Jesus' divinity, if not to worship him.
Where are the Georges Bush when you need them?0 -
so a person who kills in the name of religion couldnt be the anti-christ? it has to be an atheist?
oh and btw you missed out two probably even bigger mass murderers in stalin and mao.
A person who kills in the name of religion is a warped-christ or whatever.
An anti-christ by the very definition is someone who either has a personality cult around them that wants to replace religion or else worships the devil. It is not being an atheist.
Of course, Stalin and Mao as well as many others are there too. Certainly, I think there are 1000s more evil than Napoleon (who was probably again put in there for political reasons).
Also, a person who kills in the name of religion is evil but is supposedly doing it in the name of god and/or god's prophets. Which means that the likes of ISIS are 'working for Allah, Mohammed and ... Jesus'! But of course they are in reality using religion as a tool of oppression and that in itself is blasphemy and abuse of religion so I guess an antichrist can use religion against god. But I think there are more than 3 anyhow and at least 1 of Nostradamus' supposed ones (Napoleon) was left in the hapenny place by many others both before and after.0 -
The Nazis were Christian, and North Korea mythologises - and arguably deifies - its leaders, revering the late Kim Il-Sung as the "Eternal President Of The Republic". It seems that none of the names referred to (or even Stalin or Mao) or their movements was defined by a non-belief in deities. Rather, their respective movements could be said to be defined by extreme ideology of a counter-rational, faith-based and cultish character (though maybe Pol Pot's less than the others).
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/
--> There's no "cold shadow of atheism".
Napoleon and Hitler were both apparently not only Christian (in Hitler's case, very publicly so) but Roman Catholic. Given that, and the fact that the biblical Satan is by definition a believer in God and in fact demonstrably a believer in Christ's divinity (ie he's a Christian), it seems that what you require is a highly persuasive but internationally belligerent political figure who at least claims to believe in Jesus' divinity, if not to worship him.
Where are the Georges Bush when you need them?
Yes. Napoleon and Hitler were both born Catholic. I think Mussolini was most definitely a Catholic and facilitated the Vatican very much. Hitler officially advocated separation of church and state as did Napoleon. Hitler of course regarded Christianity as superior to other faiths obviously and his idea was that Germany was a Catholic and Lutheran country only.
Pol Pot probably presided over the most evil regime ever. But it gets less attention because it was in a far away poor country with not much resources.
Cults had often to be developed by regimes religious or otherwise. Stalin and Mao presided over perhaps the most successful. The new Revolutionary Guards regime in Iran had to set up a cult around an exiled 80 year old priest called Khomeini they planed back from France and used as figurehead. Saddam, Nasser, Gadafi, etc. are all example of Arab leaders famous for setting up cults. Some of these mixed the relevant religion, some not so much. In the middle ages, every pope and king set up a cult that linked the king to the pope and ultimately to god. To this day, the monarch of the UK is head of that nations church (Henry VIII when he fell out with the pope had to become that role for his new church). The Kims in North Korea have become almost a new religion. Check out their national holidays. They have holidays equivalent to Christmas at that time of year in celebration of the Kims. Needless to say, every important Kim birthday is a day like Christmas!0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »...The cold shadow of atheism I mean is far right organisations as well as far left extremists too ...BuilderPlumber wrote: »... It is not being an atheist.
...
so if the anti-christ is not an atheist what is the relevance of "the cold shadow of atheism"?0 -
degrassinoel wrote: »they're just examples beano, ye didn't want him to name every dictator that ever lived did ye?
did i do something wrong?0 -
Who were the first two anti christs did you say?0
-
-
degrassinoel wrote: »you were nitpicking Beano, you made a point of it and i pointed it out for ye, and here again.. so yeah i guess ye did
all a bit pointless anyway as builderplumber seems to have fecked off.0 -
what if the 3rd antichrist isnt a person, what if its an entire country that considers itself 'the last frontier of the free world'.0
-
Advertisement
-
DamagedTrax wrote: »what if the 3rd antichrist isnt a person, what if its an entire country that considers itself 'the last frontier of the free world'.
I presume you mean the US here?? If so, then the supposed name of the 3rd antichrist is MABUS. The letters US are there so what is MAB?
Reasons for and against the entire US to be the antichrist:
For:
-There are some pretty evil non-religious people in that country who take huge risks, pretend to be conservative (when they are in fact the opposite: complete radicals), and pretend to be religious (when they are in fact anything of the kind). We see this with the likes of the neocons, Sarah Palin, etc.
-A desire to take over or influence the world is there. Bush's wars are an example and the constant having to have any enemy.
-The rich/poor divide is huge. African Americans and native Americans have had a very poor treatment by the mostly white authorities over the years.
-Cruel forms of capital punishment and a persistent gun/violence culture exists in many states.
-The first and thus far only country to use nuclear weapons in war.
Against:
-The US has been lead by good, poor, weak and bad presidents. Never consistently bad. Obama is a vast improvement on his predecessor.
-US foreign policy has not always been aggressive or self righteous.
-Some wars were forced onto the US and not initiated by them.
-There are a lot of far more dictatorial, crueller regimes.
-People can vote (don't know if that means anything anywhere though!).
What if it is MAB and US? MAB are the initials of some yet to emerge president of the US? Anyway, it's only Nostradamus!!0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »I presume you mean the US here?? If so, then the supposed name of the 3rd antichrist is MABUS. The letters US are there so what is MAB?
Reasons for and against the entire US to be the antichrist:
For:
-There are some pretty evil non-religious people in that country who take huge risks, pretend to be conservative (when they are in fact the opposite: complete radicals), and pretend to be religious (when they are in fact anything of the kind). We see this with the likes of the neocons, Sarah Palin, etc.
-A desire to take over or influence the world is there. Bush's wars are an example and the constant having to have any enemy.
-The rich/poor divide is huge. African Americans and native Americans have had a very poor treatment by the mostly white authorities over the years.
-Cruel forms of capital punishment and a persistent gun/violence culture exists in many states.
-The first and thus far only country to use nuclear weapons in war.
Against:
-The US has been lead by good, poor, weak and bad presidents. Never consistently bad. Obama is a vast improvement on his predecessor.
-US foreign policy has not always been aggressive or self righteous.
-Some wars were forced onto the US and not initiated by them.
-There are a lot of far more dictatorial, crueller regimes.
-People can vote (don't know if that means anything anywhere though!).
What if it is MAB and US? MAB are the initials of some yet to emerge president of the US? Anyway, it's only Nostradamus!!
i actually meant israel.
their slogan is 'Israel: The last frontier of the free world' (beggars belief but i digress).
1. "Antichrist" will be of European descent and bloodline.
Netanyahu's real family name is Milkowsky, and he is of Lithuanian, Polish, and Belorussian descent.
2. "Antichrist" would be accepted as the Jewish Mashiach Ben David.
In order for this to be true, the "Antichrist" must be a Jew. Netanyahu is a Jew.
3. "Antichrist" will be accepted by the end times false apostate "Christian" church.
This refers to Zionist Christianity, which openly states that its sole purpose to exist, is to push and support whatever Israel's political agenda is.
4. "Antichrist" will setup a throne in Jerusalem, in a newly re-built Jewish Temple.
There are many reports that Israel's current government is planning to rebuild the temple soon.
this is a man that welcomes war
0 -
DamagedTrax wrote: »i actually meant israel.
their slogan is 'Israel: The last frontier of the free world' (beggars belief but i digress).
1. "Antichrist" will be of European descent and bloodline.
Netanyahu's real family name is Milkowsky, and he is of Lithuanian, Polish, and Belorussian descent.
2. "Antichrist" would be accepted as the Jewish Mashiach Ben David.
In order for this to be true, the "Antichrist" must be a Jew. Netanyahu is a Jew.
3. "Antichrist" will be accepted by the end times false apostate "Christian" church.
This refers to Zionist Christianity, which openly states that its sole purpose to exist, is to push and support whatever Israel's political agenda is.
4. "Antichrist" will setup a throne in Jerusalem, in a newly re-built Jewish Temple.
There are many reports that Israel's current government is planning to rebuild the temple soon.
this is a man that welcomes war
Yes, didn't think of this one. Again, here's a few views why Netanyahu's Israel may be the third antichrist and why it may not be:
For:
-Israel's regime has gone to war countless times and committed warcrimes.
-Israel's regime pretends to be religious but is very materialistic.
-Netanyahu has an agenda and thinks his is the only way.
-Most wars in his region are directly or indirectly caused by him and his regime or else he and his predecessors contribute.
-The regime is paranoid and paranoid people are dangerous. Or else attract danger (Just look how poor old Nidge ended season 5 of Love/Hate)!
Against:
-Israel has been created and nurtured by others and is an agent of others.
-The hatred is on both sides. Many awful acts have been done onto Israel too.
-Israel is not the only paranoid country.
-There are worse regimes like Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
-Israel's own agenda is very limited and does not pose a threat to others outside its region.
I never can understand why Israel is always obsessed with that poor country to its East called Iran which is hardly a threat to anyone. It never mentions that rich country to its south that actually funds all the so-called 'Islamic' terrorist groups Israel accuses Iran of doing. That country is Saudi Arabia, the most anti-Israel nation on the planet. Saudi Arabia has a lot of money to fund this stuff. Iran has nothing to fund anything.0 -
Why can't the Antichrist be an ordinary joe soap like myself??0
-
so a person who kills in the name of religion couldnt be the anti-christ? it has to be an atheist?
oh and btw you missed out two probably even bigger mass murderers in stalin and mao.
Just a thought - but if I was the antichrist (I'm not, I swear) I would tell a few porkie pies - I'd be all praise Jebus and shít, keep the eye off me.
I wouldn't go around being all antichristy and easy to spot.
But that's just me.0 -
For an Antichrist to exist, religion must be a real thing. Which imo, it isn't thus not believing such a thing.
Those "Antichrists" are nothing more than humans and human nature. Bad people exist everywhere, some rise to a position of power, some don't. Hardly a religious phenomenon.0 -
Voodoo_rasher wrote: »Why can't the Antichrist be an ordinary joe soap like myself??
No offense, but I doubt you could become a world leader and convince all religions to unite as one.
You know, all that really true stuff that has been predicted for the last 2,000 years and was never ever wrong.0 -
Mohammed bin Salman is the 3rd AntiChrist if one believes in Nostradamus. He is known as MbS for short quite similar to MABUS.0
-
For an Antichrist to exist, religion must be a real thing. Which imo, it isn't thus not believing such a thing.
Those "Antichrists" are nothing more than humans and human nature. Bad people exist everywhere, some rise to a position of power, some don't. Hardly a religious phenomenon.
Religions do exist - there are physical church buildings all over that are representative of this fact.
Christ is a "religious phenomenon" and a human, so an antichrist is someone who is simply the opposite of his ideas and teachings. I have a 3-year-old niece who can be like that at times...0 -
Advertisement
-
If one believes in Nostradamus and take his writings as fact (and not as the medieval answer to apocalyptic films like Mad Max) then Mohammed bin Salman fits the bill most as the third antichrist. Why?
Firstly he is from the Middle East the region the third AC is supposed to come out of. Secondly, as leader of Saudi Arabia and as a stated reformer, he will be initially seen as good. So alcohol and bikinis become legal under his rule and women can dress as they please. He becomes a hero to Muslims and the West and his reforms become a key to defeating terrorism and extremism.
BUT: he has other plans that he wants to implement. He annexes Yemen, Iraq and Syria and his new Modern Islamic Arab Nationalism driven by a thriving oil, tourism and financial industry suddenly puts Saudi Arabia on a footing to be the next superpower.
Meanwhile, similar reforms are taking place in Iran and the West and America are getting friendlier with the new Islamic Federal Republic of Iran which like Saudi Arabia allows alcohol and dress as one pleases and which like Saudi Arabia is thriving. Iran is not interested in expansionism though and fits as a better partner to the West, Russia and China. Saudi Arabia under MBS as he is known still remains a major Western ally and the West are in two minds about SA and Iran and both nations are trying to woo the world with lucrative oil deals. Iran does not like how Shias are treated in Saudi Arabia's new Iraq province and although it is officially autonymous, it is ruled from Riyadh and not Baghdad with an iron fist. Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalate. Saudi Arabia decide to invade Iran and drive the world into a recession when oilwells are destroyed in the war. America takes Iran's side in the war and orders an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia use their nuclear weapons (they are a nuclear power) and do a lot of damage but America defeats it but 25 years of war follows with different groups vying for control and terrorism everywhere. The Gulf region is a wreck leaving Tehran and the Caspian area the main oil region left.
Of course the above is just fiction but it is what all those Nostradamus people have been saying for years. With a few changes the same was said about Saddam. MBS sounds like MaBuS and it is likely we will be hearing more theories about him.0
Advertisement