Is Obama The AntiChrist? (at the core a political, not "religious", thread)

[GStarz]

Boy, it sure didn't take long for you to go from declaring my post to be 'excellent' to declaring me to be 'simply full of shit.'

My post was intended to show what I believe to be the majority view of the Antichrist and why I think it is a stretch to try to attach that Antichrist motif to Obama. No doubt there are a few Christians who indeed attempt to do that.

Basically, however, I don't think any of us know for sure who and what the Antichrist will be or how he will choose to assert power and authority.

As a "Bible scholar", however, I suppose you already knew that.

My apologies for misreading what she said, which was itself not an accurate representation of what you said. I'm amending that post if I can. And of course you're right here, we DON;T KNOW what form the supposed antichrist will take, which is why when a guy whose name is translated to hebrew is found to be, phonetically, the same as Jesus used to describe Satan, Christians become uncomfortable when they take the law of averages into account. There is a legit concern there for Christians. people who say there is not are simply running from or attempting to suppress a fact for their own individual reasons.

One the issue of remaining intellectually honest in the old testament, in this instance, what is your take on Jeremiah chapter 10, V 1-5. I'm curious to see where you stand on interpretation so I know how to understand the intent of your future posts more accurately.

What are some of the other traits that describe the Antichrist?

With respect, I don;t think you understand the difference between a debate or discussion, and a free education. You'll learn more if your research it yourself. if someone else wants to answer, that's fine, of course. With you, I worry that I can spend time getting involved in a discussion, only to find I've been wasting my time when you answer back with a smarmy, dismissive one-line answer. have a great day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I'm going to try this one more time and see if you can get it....

I did not say Obama was the Antichrist (damn it!), I simply said that there is legit reason why Christians would have the concern that he might. As far as so-and-so trying to explain it to me, you can take your high-minded condescension and shove it, quite plainly. I could out-debate the Bible with probably anyone on this board. However, getting them to debate honestly so I didn't waste my life away fighting with some thirty year old loser living in his Mom's basement apartment while she washes and folds his cloths is a different matter and, quite frankly, the stumbling block of engaging in that kind of debate, because the liberal online community is awash with those guys. You pal is not only wrong, he's simply full of shit.

Now why don't you try the translator instead of lecturing people who know more manifestly than you do? You might be surprised at just how much you currently don't know if you do.

Have a great day.

Boy, it sure didn't take long for you to go from declaring my post to be 'excellent' to declaring me to be 'simply full of shit.'

My post was intended to show what I believe to be the majority view of the Antichrist and why I think it is a stretch to try to attach that Antichrist motif to Obama. No doubt there are a few Christians who indeed attempt to do that.

Basically, however, I don't think any of us know for sure who and what the Antichrist will be or how he will choose to assert power and authority.

As a "Bible scholar", however, I suppose you already knew that.

My apologies for misreading what she said, which was itself not an accurate representation of what you said. I'm amending that post if I can. And of course you're right here, we DON;T KNOW what form the supposed antichrist will take, which is why when a guy whose name is translated to hebrew is found to be, phonetically, the same as Jesus used to describe Satan, Christians become uncomfortable when they take the law of averages into account. There is a legit concern there for Christians. people who say there is not are simply running from or attempting to suppress a fact for their own individual reasons.

One the issue of remaining intellectually honest in the old testament, in this instance, what is your take on Jeremiah chapter 10, V 1-5. I'm curious to see where you stand on interpretation so I know how to understand the intent of your future posts more accurately.

Apology accepted. And ah yes, Jeremiah 10:1-5, the infamous anti-Christmas tree passage as some have interpreted it. Of course Jeremiah lived in the sixth century B.C. and had no knowledge of a 'Christ" or "Christmas", but that doesn't bother those who want to read modern interpretations into the ancient texts.

One has to put it into its historical context. The nation of Israel had already disappeared, assimilated into surrounding cultures. Judah alone was ill equipped against the powerful and ruthless Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it too was crushed and the people scattered all over the place where they were subject to all sorts of unorthodox influences. The Prophets of that period kept calling the people to reject these outside influences and hold true to YHWH/God.

For me, I see the passage as a satirical condemnation of idolatry and a teaching to not let others fool us with foolish imagery and nonsense.

In the same light, I, and I believe Care, have also been urging the same rejection of this current concept of the Antichrist, most especially attached to our President.

 

[GStarz]

Boy, it sure didn't take long for you to go from declaring my post to be 'excellent' to declaring me to be 'simply full of shit.'

My post was intended to show what I believe to be the majority view of the Antichrist and why I think it is a stretch to try to attach that Antichrist motif to Obama. No doubt there are a few Christians who indeed attempt to do that.

Basically, however, I don't think any of us know for sure who and what the Antichrist will be or how he will choose to assert power and authority.

As a "Bible scholar", however, I suppose you already knew that.

My apologies for misreading what she said, which was itself not an accurate representation of what you said. I'm amending that post if I can. And of course you're right here, we DON;T KNOW what form the supposed antichrist will take, which is why when a guy whose name is translated to hebrew is found to be, phonetically, the same as Jesus used to describe Satan, Christians become uncomfortable when they take the law of averages into account. There is a legit concern there for Christians. people who say there is not are simply running from or attempting to suppress a fact for their own individual reasons.

One the issue of remaining intellectually honest in the old testament, in this instance, what is your take on Jeremiah chapter 10, V 1-5. I'm curious to see where you stand on interpretation so I know how to understand the intent of your future posts more accurately.

Apology accepted. And ah yes, Jeremiah 10:1-5, the infamous anti-Christmas tree passage as some have interpreted it. Of course Jeremiah lived in the sixth century B.C. and had no knowledge of a 'Christ" or "Christmas", but that doesn't bother those who want to read modern interpretations into the ancient texts.

One has to put it into its historical context. The nation of Israel had already disappeared, assimilated into surrounding cultures. Judah alone was ill equipped against the powerful and ruthless Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it too was crushed and the people scattered all over the place where they were subject to all sorts of unorthodox influences. The Prophets of that period kept calling the people to reject these outside influences and hold true to YHWH/God.

For me, I see the passage as a satirical condemnation of idolatry and a teaching to not let others fool us with foolish imagery and nonsense.

In the same light, I, and I believe Care, have also been urging the same rejection of this current concept of the Antichrist, most especially attached to our President.

Okay then, that sums it up. IMO, you place your interpretive opinion over fact, as the pagans did have a specific ritual of tree adornment, the original Hebrew texts apparently have no reference to idol-carving to qualify the quote as referencing anything other than tree adornment, the practice is forbidden per Jeremiah 10, and you have read a lot obliquely into that text to make it something it's quite apparent it is not.

Of course there was no knowledge of Christmas 3,500 years ago! That's one way we know that the practice was brought into Christianity with intellectual dishonesty, almost certainly to sway the pagans to Christianity by meeting them in a halfway compromise by adopting rituals that are otherwise forbidden.

That's enough - I get the picture. Thanks for your time.

 

[Marie888]

This might seem like a religious subject, but the posts and topics under "religion" here don't seem to touch too much on actual politics, and so, since this is about Obama, who is literally central to US politics, and public opinion drives policy, it seems entirely intellectually honest - even most appropriate - to put this post here.

There are videos on Youtube with millions of hits what show Obama's name being that of Satan as described by Jesus in the book of Luke. The problem with such a presentation is you need to take the poster's/narrator's word for it. That's not very convincing.

So how does one get a "reliable source" on this subject. the happy news is you don't need a "reliable source" other than an online translator, because you can manifestly prove the translation to yourself. This is simple. I did it, so it must be, right? You are certain to get these results, so i strongly suggest you take 30 minutes and try it for yourself.

Get either an online or download-able translator that has an English to Hebrew translator. One with text-to-speech is particularly effective. Follow this extremely simple procedure and see the evidence you seek for yourself>

In Luke, Jesus describes Satan as lightning falling/ or descending, from a height. It makes no sense as poetry, but if you assume the translation to be a literal name... well, draw your own conclusion.

1. Type in english, the word "Lightning". (again, text to speech allows you to hear it, so try to get a translator with that option. I use a downloadable one called Lingvosoft). Click the translate option. "Lightening" will be written as baraq and spoken as "Barack".

2. Write "Height" in English. Translate. The Hebrew word will be Bama, pronounced as the president's name minus the "O".

Apparently, when used together, these words are combined with a transliterated conjunctive of "U" or "O", so literally lighting at or from a height would have been spoken in hebrew/aramaic as Barack U Bama, or Barack O Bama.

Now if you want to call it coincidence (I cannot bring myself to be quite that blind to the laws of probability, so this issue somewhat concerns me) that's fine, but this is a fact, and the laws of averages do matter, as we all abide by them everyday in our daily lives, often subconsciously.

With remarks like, "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun", Obama has proved to be anything but Saintly. I am unaware of any evidence that suggests that Obama is too good, per se, to mitigate the circumstantial evidence, no matter how slim (or not slim) that Obama may be the Antichrist. Conclusion: there is more evidence that Obama is the Antichrist than there is evidence that he is not, because there is at least a little that he is. Just simple, manifest fact. there's nothing we can do about that unless we simply want to lie about the reality to feel better.

Please bear in mind that, "That's ridiculous", is not an argument based on the manifest facts being considered here. Choose your own sense of proportionality, to be sure, but the facts that Obama is outweighs the evidence that he isn't. It may only be one percent, but that's still the manifest reality of it.

With millions of Christians in the US and hundreds of millions in the world, the perception that Obama may be the Antichrist is a potentially serious political issue for both left and right. This info is for Christians to be better informed, and for liberals to understand that the translation is genuine, so they can find ways to defeat this argument legitimately, if they want, because these facts are true and they're spreading - we're past the point of silence and marginalization, now.

I find it very interesting and have heard this before and seen some of the videos. Gotta watch that vitriolic/rhetoric though, eh?

I don't know if he is "the" final AntiChrist, of course.. And truly, only God knows his heart. However, perhaps if Obama somehow manages a 7 year peace treaty with Israel, and some other nation or something, then I'll watch more closely.

Overall, we can test the spirits to see if they are from God. (or born again yet by His Spirit). I would love to see a quote from Obama where he plainly confesses that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior and Savior to the world and that He came in the flesh. I haven't yet.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

My apologies for misreading what she said, which was itself not an accurate representation of what you said. I'm amending that post if I can. And of course you're right here, we DON;T KNOW what form the supposed antichrist will take, which is why when a guy whose name is translated to hebrew is found to be, phonetically, the same as Jesus used to describe Satan, Christians become uncomfortable when they take the law of averages into account. There is a legit concern there for Christians. people who say there is not are simply running from or attempting to suppress a fact for their own individual reasons.

One the issue of remaining intellectually honest in the old testament, in this instance, what is your take on Jeremiah chapter 10, V 1-5. I'm curious to see where you stand on interpretation so I know how to understand the intent of your future posts more accurately.

Apology accepted. And ah yes, Jeremiah 10:1-5, the infamous anti-Christmas tree passage as some have interpreted it. Of course Jeremiah lived in the sixth century B.C. and had no knowledge of a 'Christ" or "Christmas", but that doesn't bother those who want to read modern interpretations into the ancient texts.

One has to put it into its historical context. The nation of Israel had already disappeared, assimilated into surrounding cultures. Judah alone was ill equipped against the powerful and ruthless Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it too was crushed and the people scattered all over the place where they were subject to all sorts of unorthodox influences. The Prophets of that period kept calling the people to reject these outside influences and hold true to YHWH/God.

For me, I see the passage as a satirical condemnation of idolatry and a teaching to not let others fool us with foolish imagery and nonsense.

In the same light, I, and I believe Care, have also been urging the same rejection of this current concept of the Antichrist, most especially attached to our President.

Okay then, that sums it up. IMO, you place your interpretive opinion over fact, as the pagans did have a specific ritual of tree adornment, the original Hebrew texts apparently have no reference to idol-carving to qualify the quote as referencing anything other than tree adornment, the practice is forbidden per Jeremiah 10, and you have read a lot obliquely into that text to make it something it's quite apparent it is not.

Of course there was no knowledge of Christmas 3,500 years ago! That's one way we know that the practice was brought into Christianity with intellectual dishonesty, almost certainly to sway the pagans to Christianity by meeting them in a halfway compromise by adopting rituals that are otherwise forbidden.

That's enough - I get the picture. Thanks for your time.

I didn't say the pagans didn't adorn trees. In my opinion--which is not exactly an uneducated opinon--Jeremiah was NOT referring to Christmas trees but rather to pagan customs in that passage. Christians would adapt many pagan customs into their own traditions and made them uniquely their own. And anti-Christians doggedly point to that phenomenon as Christian dishonesty which is absurd.

Anyhow, I think I am on as solid ground as anybody in my interpretation of Jeremiah 10:1-5 and you are certainly able and welcome to disagree with it as you obviously do. I suppose that means you've reassigned me to being 'simply full of shit'.

 

[GStarz]

Apology accepted. And ah yes, Jeremiah 10:1-5, the infamous anti-Christmas tree passage as some have interpreted it. Of course Jeremiah lived in the sixth century B.C. and had no knowledge of a 'Christ" or "Christmas", but that doesn't bother those who want to read modern interpretations into the ancient texts.

One has to put it into its historical context. The nation of Israel had already disappeared, assimilated into surrounding cultures. Judah alone was ill equipped against the powerful and ruthless Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it too was crushed and the people scattered all over the place where they were subject to all sorts of unorthodox influences. The Prophets of that period kept calling the people to reject these outside influences and hold true to YHWH/God.

For me, I see the passage as a satirical condemnation of idolatry and a teaching to not let others fool us with foolish imagery and nonsense.

In the same light, I, and I believe Care, have also been urging the same rejection of this current concept of the Antichrist, most especially attached to our President.

Okay then, that sums it up. IMO, you place your interpretive opinion over fact, as the pagans did have a specific ritual of tree adornment, the original Hebrew texts apparently have no reference to idol-carving to qualify the quote as referencing anything other than tree adornment, the practice is forbidden per Jeremiah 10, and you have read a lot obliquely into that text to make it something it's quite apparent it is not.

Of course there was no knowledge of Christmas 3,500 years ago! That's one way we know that the practice was brought into Christianity with intellectual dishonesty, almost certainly to sway the pagans to Christianity by meeting them in a halfway compromise by adopting rituals that are otherwise forbidden.

That's enough - I get the picture. Thanks for your time.

I didn't say the pagans didn't adorn trees. In my opinion--which is not exactly an uneducated opinon--Jeremiah was NOT referring to Christmas trees but rather to pagan customs in that passage. Christians would adapt many pagan customs into their own traditions and made them uniquely their own. And anti-Christians doggedly point to that phenomenon as Christian dishonesty which is absurd.

Anyhow, I think I am on as solid ground as anybody in my interpretation of Jeremiah 10:1-5 and you are certainly able and welcome to disagree with it as you obviously do. I suppose that means you've reassigned me to being 'simply full of shit'.

No, no, not full of shit. I generally reserve that for liberals and i apologized. if you're a christian, take the apology and be quiet on that, okay, because it's not graceful to rub someone's nose in a mistake. Fair?

I have one straight-up question for you, no spin: if the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual celebration, why on earth should any christian do it so as to make the practice uniquely their own? that sounds like truly absurd thinking, no offense.

No, i don't think you're on solid ground, but we do agree that your view isn't all that educated. You mean well, but you aren't thinking clearly. Food for thought: You don't embrace something God tells you not to do and try to justify it by calling it "Christian". A dog on the street could understand logic as simple as that. Seriously.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay then, that sums it up. IMO, you place your interpretive opinion over fact, as the pagans did have a specific ritual of tree adornment, the original Hebrew texts apparently have no reference to idol-carving to qualify the quote as referencing anything other than tree adornment, the practice is forbidden per Jeremiah 10, and you have read a lot obliquely into that text to make it something it's quite apparent it is not.

Of course there was no knowledge of Christmas 3,500 years ago! That's one way we know that the practice was brought into Christianity with intellectual dishonesty, almost certainly to sway the pagans to Christianity by meeting them in a halfway compromise by adopting rituals that are otherwise forbidden.

That's enough - I get the picture. Thanks for your time.

I didn't say the pagans didn't adorn trees. In my opinion--which is not exactly an uneducated opinon--Jeremiah was NOT referring to Christmas trees but rather to pagan customs in that passage. Christians would adapt many pagan customs into their own traditions and made them uniquely their own. And anti-Christians doggedly point to that phenomenon as Christian dishonesty which is absurd.

Anyhow, I think I am on as solid ground as anybody in my interpretation of Jeremiah 10:1-5 and you are certainly able and welcome to disagree with it as you obviously do. I suppose that means you've reassigned me to being 'simply full of shit'.

No, no, not full of shit. I generally reserve that for liberals and i apologized. if you're a christian, take the apology and be quiet on that, okay, because it's not graceful to rub someone's nose in a mistake. Fair?

I have one straight-up question for you, no spin: if the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual celebration, why on earth should any christian do it so as to make the practice uniquely their own? that sounds like truly absurd thinking, no offense.

No, i don't think you're on solid ground, but we do agree that your view isn't all that educated. You mean well, but you aren't thinking clearly. Food for thought: You don't embrace something God tells you not to do and try to justify it by calling it "Christian". A dog on the street could understand logic as simple as that. Seriously.

I don't think the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual manner. I believe the Bible forbids believers in God from making false idols out of anything. Again, I see that particular passage in Jeremiah as a satirical ridicule of worthless idols and idol worship. Not much different than an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh describing the antics of certain liberals and pointing out how futile or counterproductive it is.

 

[GStarz]

I didn't say the pagans didn't adorn trees. In my opinion--which is not exactly an uneducated opinon--Jeremiah was NOT referring to Christmas trees but rather to pagan customs in that passage. Christians would adapt many pagan customs into their own traditions and made them uniquely their own. And anti-Christians doggedly point to that phenomenon as Christian dishonesty which is absurd.

Anyhow, I think I am on as solid ground as anybody in my interpretation of Jeremiah 10:1-5 and you are certainly able and welcome to disagree with it as you obviously do. I suppose that means you've reassigned me to being 'simply full of shit'.

No, no, not full of shit. I generally reserve that for liberals and i apologized. if you're a christian, take the apology and be quiet on that, okay, because it's not graceful to rub someone's nose in a mistake. Fair?

I have one straight-up question for you, no spin: if the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual celebration, why on earth should any christian do it so as to make the practice uniquely their own? that sounds like truly absurd thinking, no offense.

No, i don't think you're on solid ground, but we do agree that your view isn't all that educated. You mean well, but you aren't thinking clearly. Food for thought: You don't embrace something God tells you not to do and try to justify it by calling it "Christian". A dog on the street could understand logic as simple as that. Seriously.

I don't think the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual manner. I believe the Bible forbids believers in God from making false idols out of anything. Again, I see that particular passage in Jeremiah as a satirical ridicule of worthless idols and idol worship. Not much different than an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh describing the antics of certain liberals and pointing out how futile or counterproductive it is.

Belief is what you're engaged in, because the original Hebrew and Greek texts make no reference in that passage to idol-making. I know the reason you state, I've heard it a million times: it was meant to represent cutting down a tree, carving an idol and adorning the idol with gold and silver. the problem comes from 2 points: the original texts make no mention of the carving of an idol aspect and 2, the pagans did have a ritual of cutting down trees, setting them upright in the house and decorating them with gold and silver - this they did basically worshiping the tree as representative of a pro-creative symbol. This is forbidden in the Bible.

Hope this helps to clarify the issue. if you don;t believe me, read up, but don;t expect any amazing 'revelations" on this from the catholic Encyclopedia, because it sounds like that's where you may have gotten your current idea in you head in the first place. Re-read points one and two above, and re-consider your view on this.

This tells me volumes about your view of the Antichrist, however. With respect, you have no idea overall what you're really talking about. not designed as an insult - I really mean it.

Come back when you know your Bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, no, not full of shit. I generally reserve that for liberals and i apologized. if you're a christian, take the apology and be quiet on that, okay, because it's not graceful to rub someone's nose in a mistake. Fair?

I have one straight-up question for you, no spin: if the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual celebration, why on earth should any christian do it so as to make the practice uniquely their own? that sounds like truly absurd thinking, no offense.

No, i don't think you're on solid ground, but we do agree that your view isn't all that educated. You mean well, but you aren't thinking clearly. Food for thought: You don't embrace something God tells you not to do and try to justify it by calling it "Christian". A dog on the street could understand logic as simple as that. Seriously.

I don't think the Bible forbids believers in God to adorn trees in a ritual manner. I believe the Bible forbids believers in God from making false idols out of anything. Again, I see that particular passage in Jeremiah as a satirical ridicule of worthless idols and idol worship. Not much different than an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh describing the antics of certain liberals and pointing out how futile or counterproductive it is.

Belief is what you're engaged in, because the original Hebrew and Greek texts make no reference in that passage to idol-making. I know the reason you state, I've heard it a million times: it was meant to represent cutting down a tree, carving an idol and adorning the idol with gold and silver. the problem comes from 2 points: the original texts make no mention of the carving of an idol aspect and 2, the pagans did have a ritual of cutting down trees, setting them upright in the house and decorating them with gold and silver - this they did basically worshiping the tree as representative of a pro-creative symbol. This is forbidden in the Bible.

Hope this helps to clarify the issue. if you don;t believe me, read up, but don;t expect any amazing 'revelations" on this from the catholic Encyclopedia, because it sounds like that's where you may have gotten your current idea in you head in the first place. Re-read points one and two above, and re-consider your view on this.

This tells me volumes about your view of the Antichrist, however. With respect, you have no idea overall what you're really talking about. not designed as an insult - I really mean it.

Come back when you know your Bible.

I've read the Hebrew, Greek and probably most of the English translations. (None of the original Old Testament was written in Greek, however.) Again, I look at the whole message of the prophet within the historical context. In other passages of Jeremiah just to cite a few:

Jeremiah 3:9 Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 4:22 "My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 5:4 I thought, "These are only the poor; they are foolish, for they do not know the way of the LORD, the requirements of their God.

And shortly following !0:1-5. . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 10:8 A drought on her waters! They will dry up. For it is a land of idols, idols that will go mad with terror.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 10:14 Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. His images are a fraud; they have no breath in them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can hope that 10:1-5 was not making any reference to idols, but I think the scope and breadth of Jeremiah's message strongly suggests that he was.

Again I'm not going to fight with anybody over scripture unless they are using scripture to intentionally mislead somebody. But I will state my opinion which I believe to be an informed opinion. And I think I have it right on this.

 

[JScott]

My apologies for misreading what she said, which was itself not an accurate representation of what you said. I'm amending that post if I can. And of course you're right here, we DON;T KNOW what form the supposed antichrist will take, which is why when a guy whose name is translated to hebrew is found to be, phonetically, the same as Jesus used to describe Satan, Christians become uncomfortable when they take the law of averages into account. There is a legit concern there for Christians. people who say there is not are simply running from or attempting to suppress a fact for their own individual reasons.

One the issue of remaining intellectually honest in the old testament, in this instance, what is your take on Jeremiah chapter 10, V 1-5. I'm curious to see where you stand on interpretation so I know how to understand the intent of your future posts more accurately.

What are some of the other traits that describe the Antichrist?

With respect, I don;t think you understand the difference between a debate or discussion, and a free education. You'll learn more if your research it yourself. if someone else wants to answer, that's fine, of course. With you, I worry that I can spend time getting involved in a discussion, only to find I've been wasting my time when you answer back with a smarmy, dismissive one-line answer. have a great day.

So, again, you refuse to back up what you say with anything other than the translation of a name. Ive tried to discuss it but you refuse. I think the only one who is deficient in the ability to "discuss" or "debate" is you. As long as everyone agrees with you its discussion, right? Wrong.

Ill do the research for you, my friend.

Paul writes that this Man of Sin will possess a number of characteristics. These include "sitting in the temple", opposing himself against anything that is worshiped, claiming divine authority,[12] working all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs,[13] and doing all kinds of evil.[14] Paul notes that "the mystery of lawlessness"[15] (though not the Man of Sin himself) was working in secret already during his day and will continue to function until being destroyed on the Last Day.[16] His identity is to be revealed after that which is restraining him is removed.[10][16]

The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7.[17] Daniel 9:27 mentions an "abomination that causes desolations" setting itself up in a "wing" or a "pinnacle" of the temple.[18] Some scholars interpret this as referring to the Antichrist.[19] Some commentators also view the verses prior to this as referring to the Antichrist.[20] Jesus references the abomination from Daniel 9:27, 11:31,[21] and 12:11[22] in Matthew 24:15[23] and Mark 13:14[24] when he warns about the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 11:36-37[25] speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the Antichrist.[26]
Antichrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you wont believe wiki, so....

Says everything there is to know.
Characteristics of Antichrist revealed

And....

here’s the antichrist’s characteristics:

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have “no regard for the desire of women”: He will either be asexual or homosexual
[Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave
[2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

the antichrist will be someone that no one will expect. so many people are focusing on the antichrist… but they are totally forgetting about the false prophet who MUST rise first.
Newsweek - Is Obama the Antichrist? | Bible Prophecy In The News

Heres all the information you need. Its not a short list either. Sure he fits into a few of them but who doesnt? Now everyone can judge for themselves instead of hearing a translation of a name. Since you wont give "the facts that Obama is outweighs the evidence that he isn't" we're clear now.

I hope I have earned badge of forum discusser/debater with you.

 

[GStarz]

What are some of the other traits that describe the Antichrist?

With respect, I don;t think you understand the difference between a debate or discussion, and a free education. You'll learn more if your research it yourself. if someone else wants to answer, that's fine, of course. With you, I worry that I can spend time getting involved in a discussion, only to find I've been wasting my time when you answer back with a smarmy, dismissive one-line answer. have a great day.

So, again, you refuse to back up what you say with anything other than the translation of a name. Ive tried to discuss it but you refuse. I think the only one who is deficient in the ability to "discuss" or "debate" is you. As long as everyone agrees with you its discussion, right? Wrong.

Ill do the research for you, my friend.

Paul writes that this Man of Sin will possess a number of characteristics. These include "sitting in the temple", opposing himself against anything that is worshiped, claiming divine authority,[12] working all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs,[13] and doing all kinds of evil.[14] Paul notes that "the mystery of lawlessness"[15] (though not the Man of Sin himself) was working in secret already during his day and will continue to function until being destroyed on the Last Day.[16] His identity is to be revealed after that which is restraining him is removed.[10][16]

The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7.[17] Daniel 9:27 mentions an "abomination that causes desolations" setting itself up in a "wing" or a "pinnacle" of the temple.[18] Some scholars interpret this as referring to the Antichrist.[19] Some commentators also view the verses prior to this as referring to the Antichrist.[20] Jesus references the abomination from Daniel 9:27, 11:31,[21] and 12:11[22] in Matthew 24:15[23] and Mark 13:14[24] when he warns about the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 11:36-37[25] speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the Antichrist.[26]
Antichrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you wont believe wiki, so....

Says everything there is to know.
Characteristics of Antichrist revealed

And....

here’s the antichrist’s characteristics:

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have “no regard for the desire of women”: He will either be asexual or homosexual
[Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave
[2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

the antichrist will be someone that no one will expect. so many people are focusing on the antichrist… but they are totally forgetting about the false prophet who MUST rise first.
Newsweek - Is Obama the Antichrist? | Bible Prophecy In The News

Heres all the information you need. Its not a short list either. Sure he fits into a few of them but who doesnt? Now everyone can judge for themselves instead of hearing a translation of a name. Since you wont give "the facts that Obama is outweighs the evidence that he isn't" we're clear now.

I hope I have earned badge of forum discusser/debater with you.

Holy shit - you just PROVED IT! Gulp! Well done, but not in the way you intended.

Thanks for the sleepless night. I may just explain this to you sometime. This is just exactly what I didn't need to read!

As for Newsweek as an unbiased source, you really are kidding, right?

You took this seriously though, and that's better than most. Yes, you're a debater in this instance, no question, and i respect that, for sure. I am, however, not joking about you seeming to have inadvertently proved the theory, but I really need to look into this first, with some significant source translation before saying anything whatsoever specific. But I think you just opened up a bigger can of worms than you could have possibly imagined, because not one but a couple of things just flew off the page. No joke. And I have to say, I really wish you hadn't. Ignorance is bliss in this case. I wish i did';t see a couple of things you just pointed out. I'll get back on this, but it may take some time - one of these points is way out of the ballpark for me, and I want to be sure, and there are both ministers and rabbis I know who will be much more expert at the translations than i could ever hope to be. Thank you. I think.

 

[JScott]

With respect, I don;t think you understand the difference between a debate or discussion, and a free education. You'll learn more if your research it yourself. if someone else wants to answer, that's fine, of course. With you, I worry that I can spend time getting involved in a discussion, only to find I've been wasting my time when you answer back with a smarmy, dismissive one-line answer. have a great day.

So, again, you refuse to back up what you say with anything other than the translation of a name. Ive tried to discuss it but you refuse. I think the only one who is deficient in the ability to "discuss" or "debate" is you. As long as everyone agrees with you its discussion, right? Wrong.

Ill do the research for you, my friend.

Paul writes that this Man of Sin will possess a number of characteristics. These include "sitting in the temple", opposing himself against anything that is worshiped, claiming divine authority,[12] working all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs,[13] and doing all kinds of evil.[14] Paul notes that "the mystery of lawlessness"[15] (though not the Man of Sin himself) was working in secret already during his day and will continue to function until being destroyed on the Last Day.[16] His identity is to be revealed after that which is restraining him is removed.[10][16]

The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7.[17] Daniel 9:27 mentions an "abomination that causes desolations" setting itself up in a "wing" or a "pinnacle" of the temple.[18] Some scholars interpret this as referring to the Antichrist.[19] Some commentators also view the verses prior to this as referring to the Antichrist.[20] Jesus references the abomination from Daniel 9:27, 11:31,[21] and 12:11[22] in Matthew 24:15[23] and Mark 13:14[24] when he warns about the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 11:36-37[25] speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the Antichrist.[26]
Antichrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you wont believe wiki, so....

Says everything there is to know.
Characteristics of Antichrist revealed

And....

here’s the antichrist’s characteristics:

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have “no regard for the desire of women”: He will either be asexual or homosexual
[Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave
[2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

the antichrist will be someone that no one will expect. so many people are focusing on the antichrist… but they are totally forgetting about the false prophet who MUST rise first.
Newsweek - Is Obama the Antichrist? | Bible Prophecy In The News

Heres all the information you need. Its not a short list either. Sure he fits into a few of them but who doesnt? Now everyone can judge for themselves instead of hearing a translation of a name. Since you wont give "the facts that Obama is outweighs the evidence that he isn't" we're clear now.

I hope I have earned badge of forum discusser/debater with you.

Holy shit - you just PROVED IT! Gulp! Well done, but not in the way you intended.

Thanks for the sleepless night. I may just explain this to you sometime. This is just exactly what I didn't need to read!

As for Newsweek as an unbiased source, you really are kidding, right?

You took this seriously though, and that's better than most. Yes, you're a debater in this instance, no question, and i respect that, for sure. I am, however, not joking about you seeming to have inadvertently proved the theory, but I really need to look into this first, with some significant source translation before saying anything whatsoever specific. But I think you just opened up a bigger can of worms than you could have possibly imagined, because not one but a couple of things just flew off the page. No joke. And I have to say, I really wish you hadn't. Ignorance is bliss in this case. I wish i did';t see a couple of things you just pointed out. I'll get back on this, but it may take some time - one of these points is way out of the ballpark for me, and I want to be sure, and there are both ministers and rabbis I know who will be much more expert at the translations than i could ever hope to be. Thank you. I think.

What you missed is that anyone can fit some of these. Yeah Obama fits a few but not all as the guide lines explain.

 

[Foxfyre]

JScott, I imagine Buddha, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and Ronald McDonald would fit some of that. As would all of us.

Are you the Antichrist? No?

I'm not the Antichrist.

That eliminates two.

 

[Toro]

JScott, I imagine Buddha, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and Ronald McDonald would fit some of that. As would all of us.

Are you the Antichrist? No?

I'm not the Antichrist.

That eliminates two.

Oh sure. That's what they all say.

 

[Foxfyre]

JScott, I imagine Buddha, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and Ronald McDonald would fit some of that. As would all of us.

Are you the Antichrist? No?

I'm not the Antichrist.

That eliminates two.

Oh sure. That's what they all say.

I wonder if the Antichrist will KNOW that he is the Antichrist when he gets here?

 

[GStarz]

So, again, you refuse to back up what you say with anything other than the translation of a name. Ive tried to discuss it but you refuse. I think the only one who is deficient in the ability to "discuss" or "debate" is you. As long as everyone agrees with you its discussion, right? Wrong.

Ill do the research for you, my friend.

Paul writes that this Man of Sin will possess a number of characteristics. These include "sitting in the temple", opposing himself against anything that is worshiped, claiming divine authority,[12] working all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs,[13] and doing all kinds of evil.[14] Paul notes that "the mystery of lawlessness"[15] (though not the Man of Sin himself) was working in secret already during his day and will continue to function until being destroyed on the Last Day.[16] His identity is to be revealed after that which is restraining him is removed.[10][16]

The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7.[17] Daniel 9:27 mentions an "abomination that causes desolations" setting itself up in a "wing" or a "pinnacle" of the temple.[18] Some scholars interpret this as referring to the Antichrist.[19] Some commentators also view the verses prior to this as referring to the Antichrist.[20] Jesus references the abomination from Daniel 9:27, 11:31,[21] and 12:11[22] in Matthew 24:15[23] and Mark 13:14[24] when he warns about the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 11:36-37[25] speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the Antichrist.[26]
Antichrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you wont believe wiki, so....

Says everything there is to know.
Characteristics of Antichrist revealed

And....

here’s the antichrist’s characteristics:

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have “no regard for the desire of women”: He will either be asexual or homosexual
[Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave
[2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

the antichrist will be someone that no one will expect. so many people are focusing on the antichrist… but they are totally forgetting about the false prophet who MUST rise first.
Newsweek - Is Obama the Antichrist? | Bible Prophecy In The News

Heres all the information you need. Its not a short list either. Sure he fits into a few of them but who doesnt? Now everyone can judge for themselves instead of hearing a translation of a name. Since you wont give "the facts that Obama is outweighs the evidence that he isn't" we're clear now.

I hope I have earned badge of forum discusser/debater with you.

Holy shit - you just PROVED IT! Gulp! Well done, but not in the way you intended.

Thanks for the sleepless night. I may just explain this to you sometime. This is just exactly what I didn't need to read!

As for Newsweek as an unbiased source, you really are kidding, right?

You took this seriously though, and that's better than most. Yes, you're a debater in this instance, no question, and i respect that, for sure. I am, however, not joking about you seeming to have inadvertently proved the theory, but I really need to look into this first, with some significant source translation before saying anything whatsoever specific. But I think you just opened up a bigger can of worms than you could have possibly imagined, because not one but a couple of things just flew off the page. No joke. And I have to say, I really wish you hadn't. Ignorance is bliss in this case. I wish i did';t see a couple of things you just pointed out. I'll get back on this, but it may take some time - one of these points is way out of the ballpark for me, and I want to be sure, and there are both ministers and rabbis I know who will be much more expert at the translations than i could ever hope to be. Thank you. I think.

What you missed is that anyone can fit some of these. Yeah Obama fits a few but not all as the guide lines explain.

With respect, you need to be accomplished on the Bible to see what I see, and I'm betting that these things are already known by people far more accomplished than I am, and why the Obama AntiChrist thing is so strong. As a nutter/pop culture thing, it shouldn't exist at all. I figured it did because of the name translation, which is legit. But what I'm suddenly seeing is intense.

We don't get along all that well, you and I, but I respect your desire to go after this issue with intellectual honesty which is the first time I have ever seen a liberal (I assume you are) give it an honest shot. I have liberal friends - it's hard to live in the real world without crossing lines - so I don't hate liberals per se out of hand (yes we don't agree a lot and I think they simply need more education from people other than the people they know and the MSM - an advantage for conservatives because unless you only listen to Fox news and talk radio, you are bombarded with the opposite opinion everywhere else in the media, so you get both sides whether you like it or not. Liberals often easily shut out opposing views and are often uneducated about what's really going on on the other side). And I owe you a lot for - admittedly unintentionally - posting what you did, and I'll talk about it down the road. But this is a shock, however it's better than being in the dark. So, though you conveyed the information unintentionally, thank you, anyway. This isn't any of the things you may think, I am certain. I don't want to talk anymore about this new thing, because like the translation, this can be very tricky stuff, and you at least want to know you have the game in the ball park. I did the translation on the name on three different translators - repeatedly - with text-to-speech to make sure something this explosive was 100% grounded at least as a form of evidence that could drive Christians into some state of concern, because it does seem so outrageous. But this new thing is much bigger than the name. I better just leave it at that. Thank you, though, for it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

JScott, I imagine Buddha, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and Ronald McDonald would fit some of that. As would all of us.

Are you the Antichrist? No?

I'm not the Antichrist.

That eliminates two.

Oh sure. That's what they all say.

I wonder if the Antichrist will KNOW that he is the Antichrist when he gets here?

I don't think he does know for the time being. Who ever that person is will be assassinated and satan will enter into him.