Could Obama be the Antichrist?

Post Reply New Topic

Aspie_Rocker- I was brought up with the same type of stuff- my mom used tot alk about the antichrist all the time when I was a little kid and it scared me to death. I had some triggered anxiety problems because of all the religious hysteria. I can tell yuor parents sjut want to keep you safe, as my mom thought she was doing. Eventually she stopped when I got old enough to say I didnt want to hear all that "negative stuff".

Keep in mind that if the antichrist is real, the majority of the people are supposed to like him, and right now it's only his followers who like him. Not even all the dems like him, and if he were to be the frontrunner against McCain, there'd be a lot of stuff brought up agaisnt him that would make people dislike him. Since the antichrist is supposed to be loved by everyone, it doesn't seem very rational that Obama is him, does it?

All in all, I think you should tell your parents to stop talking about this stuff with you. you're not enjoying your life if you're worried about the AC all the time.

The gospel of Judas contradicts the teaching of the church and the gospels that were accepted by all the churches set up by the apostles. If the gospel of Judas was true, it would mean the church and the accepted gospels are wrong which would almost disprove Christianity because it is based upon the church's teachings.

One of Satan's strategies is to get his followers to pretend to be Christians by calling themselves Christians and teaching some of what Jesus taught but changing some parts of it to corrupt it and deceive others. I think the gnostics created the fake gospel to get people to question the teaching of the church to turn people away from Christianity and toward the path to Hell. It's the same as people today who call themselves Christians and claim to follow Jesus and the Bible but change the teaching on salvation to say that only faith is required.

Does it really matter who is the Antichrist? As far as I am concerned, we have already accepted the Mark of the Beast simply by living in a money economy. I don't have any objections to In God We Trust being on US currency; I would only amend it to In This God We Trust.

One of the reasons the Native Americans so bitterly fought for their culture and land was that they saw, correctly, that adopting the white man's ways meant slavery. I am not romanticizing them; I am sure that their lives were pretty hard in some respects, but I do not think they suffered from as much stress. They were not slaves to a time clock; they were not slaves to money. They didn't have a problem with homelessness because everyone could afford a home. They didn't have a problem with some individuals going hungry and others eating too much. They weren't shut out of the health care system. It was not until they were confined to reservations that they even knew what poverty meant.

If you think I exaggerate, the next time you go anywhere or need anything, leave your money, your checkbook, and your credit/debit cards behind. Try to get by by bartering goods and services only. Then let me know how successful you were at acquiring the things you need. Because the truth of it is, if you don't have money in some form or another, whether electronic or old-fashioned physical cash, there's a whole lot of things you are not going to have access to. Maybe your grocery store or pharmacist takes barter; mine doesn't. Maybe your bank or landlord will let you work in lieu of payment; mine doesn't. And so on and so forth. To live in this modern-day world takes money. And employers know this all too well. If you live in an area where the economy isn't good and you do have a job and your boss says that he or she doesn't care how many hours you have to put in to make an impossible deadline, then you do it because you really haven't a lot of choice. Maybe that is not the same as a chip in the forehead and on the arm, but I don't see what difference it would make anyway. Because I have heard this Antichrist BS for decades now, the Mark of the Beast and so forth, but I do not see anybody putting any systems in place to circumvent it. As if they will somehow be exempt. Well, I got news. No one is exempt.

If I may add, when these writings were wrought, do you believe there was actually a church?
For all we know now, there was nothing more than word of mouth, and Peter, being the first "pope", didn't have much beaurocratic power then, to say that Judas was a liar, and I'm sure he knew much about it; more than we will ever know.

This whole thread is an example of futility by way of madness.

Years ago (in the 1990s), a devout Catholic friend of my parents told me that he read about a prophecy which stated that the Anti-Christ would turn out to be someone who was born to a Muslim father and a Jewish mother. I don't believe in prophecies, but it's interesting that Obama's father happened to be a Muslim. But, like I said, I don't believe in prophecies. And I'm sure that that particular prophecy was nothing more than pro-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish propaganda.

Speaking of prophecies, I'm sure you have heard of Nostradamus' "prophecy" about an Anti-Christ whom he called "Mabus". Some people have suggested that "Mabus" is really Obama spelled backwards. But other people have said that "Mabus" actually refers to Ray Mabus, who is a former governor of Mississippi, and who has openly campaigned for Obama. There's been talk that if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, he would choose Ray Mabus as his running mate.

I got this Mabus quote from another website:
"A governor that supports Obama and is an Obama advisor has the same name. Coincidently his name is Ray "Mabus" so if Obama makes him the running mate many will say Obama's running mate is the anti-Christ. The time line would be right. If something major is suppose to happen in 2012 then it would be at the end of Obama's first term. if something happens to Obama, Ray Mabus would become president. The anti-christ would rise to power after an event that would cause worldwide chaos according to scripture. His job is to unite the world in a horrific time."

I know.

I'm not an expert but I think the apostles set up churches and appointed people to teach others. Their had to have been some type of organization and not just word of mouth or it would have been difficult for people to know the truth about what Christ taught. The book of Acts has a good history of the early church. In Acts 1, it's clear that the apostles were the leaders of the early church. After Judas died, the apostles choose Mathias to replace him. Why choose a successor? Is there any reason to think they wouldn't have chosen replacements for the other apostles after they passed away so that leadership of the church could be maintained? Acts 15 records what happened at the Council at Jerusalem where the apostles and elders met to consider whether non-Jewish people should be required to follow the law of Moses. After the discussion, Peter announced their decison. The apostles and elders, with the whole church, sent letters to believers in other cities with requirements that were to be followed. All of this convinces me that there was some type of organization designed to keep the teaching of Jesus straight and help clarify what Jesus taught.

Do you believe the Shroud of Turin to be real?

I think that was dated to about a thousand A.D. Ahh, well that was never the only evidence that Jesus existed (he was documented in several secular accounts, one of which was complaining about him).

Regardless, Obama has a very low chance of being the antichrist. In my opinion the antichrist would be a leader of the United Nations should the organization grow significantly in power. The United States is a powerful country, but rulers of the world we are not.

I was asking Zendell thanks!

There is some good evidence that it may be real and I don't think anyone has been able to reproduce it. The carbon dating is meaningless because there's evidence they used repaired pieces that were attached to the original cloth. I don't think the original cloth has even been dated. However, I'm not convinced it's definitely real and I don't use it as evidence of anything.

Christians have never really agreed on what Jesus did, said, or what it all means. There have always been a variety of scriptures and interpretations, and the major church has always tried to stamp out things it didn't like.

The gnostics stamped Christianity with their ideas. So did the Trinitarians. The Trinitarians won, so the pre-existing Greek idea of a tri-partite God made it into the scriptures that were adopted. The gnostics were pushed out into the wilderness and faded out.

AspieRocker,

I am also an evangelical Christian (It is good to see you on here!). Personally, I think we have to be careful about being quick to label someone as the Antichrist - because that really is a serious deal. However, if you are like me and you grew up reading the left behind books, there is that something about Obama's charisma that really does SCARE me a little bit - especially when you take into consideration HOW MUCH he actually gets away with politically because of his charisma power. At the same time, I don't really admire John McCain much and I haven't decided what I am going to do in November. Mike Huckabee was my guy and he lost.

If God really spoke through Jesus to deliver his message and teach everyone the path to salvation, then I'm sure God would have preserved his teaching so that everyone could benefit from it. That is the best evidence against gnostism and also Protestantism.

Perhaps I can be of some help here. The title of Nietzsche's fine book "Der Antichrist" is almost always translated as "The Antichrist." That's probably the best possible translation -- I can't think of an improvement -- but it illustrates how even the best translation is often quite imperfect. "Christ" in German means the same as "Christian," while "Christ" in English means the same as the German "Christus." For whatever irrational reason however, where the Engliah bibles say "Anticgrist," the German bibles also say "Antichrist" and not "Antichristus."

And so: the German word "Antichrist," besides meaning what English speakers think it means, also can mean "anti-Christian," and Nietzsche definitely meant it both ways, and the second more than the first: he was saying that he was an anti-Christian, the opposite of a Christian.

So, although there may be only one Antichrist who, according to the New Testamant, will rule the Earth after the Rapture, there are probably a number of people who strive to be the opposite of a Christian, many of them no doubt inspire by Nietzsche's excellent little book.