The Beast and The Antichrist Have Been Revealed!

There is nothing revealed in this thread. You provide a vague description of what a potential anti-christ to be, and then serve it to us expecting us to fill in the blanks--the same vagueness the Bible serves up, while the followers expect everyone to derive modern day life lessons from, all the while, never knowing for sure themselves.

Give me evidence, facts, and research--not a copy and paste of definitions. Poorly constructed post.

The Actual Answer to the OP

Most people think the Antichrist is singular, in the way of the a person place or thing, but it isn't.
It represents ALL that are opposed to God's government and Christ 1000 reign.
Here is the interesting thing some know they are opposed to this, others are opposed to it in pure ignorance.

As for the beast he represents all the political systems so basically the UN countries, and since they have been hijacked by the corporatist's agenda via the different commercial industrial complexes, but especially the banking cartels. That is where the buy and sell part comes in.
See the Federal Reserve has ability to control who buys and sells by issuing imaginary currency into the trillions, and since most of it goes to the government they are tied together. Add to that the World Bank and the IMF, it's not like I would ever get a loan from these guys, these organizations lend to countries at the request of the political body. Then they can buy and sell with there fiat money too.

Revelation 13:16-18

The second beast forces all people-important and unimportant people, rich and poor people, free people and slaves-to be branded on their right hands or on their foreheads.
17It does this so that no one may buy or sell unless he has the brand, which is the beast's name or the number of its name.
18In this situation wisdom is needed. Let the person who has insight figure out the number of the beast, because it is a human number. The beast's number is 666.

Everybody is trapped in this economic system, unless you are a survivalist and can live off the land, totally off the grid. Eventually you need to buy something and how do you do it without any currency. I guess you could trade services for product, but that can't always be done either.

As for the number 666 notice it says a human number, this represents the twisted and messed up way humans have developed there political and commercial and monetary systems. It represents gross imperfection and deeply flawed human thinking and it's development put into practice.












[edit on 2-8-2010 by Blue_Jay33]

Poorly constructed post

If the bible mentions an antichrist, it should be able to point out what or who it is...

5 pages filled with atheists, freemasons, witches, christians, agnostics, etc...
Some believe in the bible, others in themselves, others in nothing. What is truth based on?

If we can't agree on one same truth, this thread should be closed already.

reply to post by The Djin


I love you "progressive" types who scream about diversity but when someone says something that bugs ya you drag out the insult bag and start flinging personal judgements like a monkey with it's poop.

Theres nothing wrong with this post if you disagree fine, but dont been a total jerk and insult a persons beliefs.

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
yes... you are right

the beast: human

the antichrist: stupidity

hence we are attacked by human stupidity

Yeah exactly!

The beast is the evil human actions of man, the human flesh, and actions made by the human Ego & human flesh!

All evil actions made by man and the human flesh, if not kept in exact balance with the the higher divine Law of balance & justice in the Universe (spirituality vs actions made by the human flesh) will come back to you one day as revenge (The Godess of Karma) hunt you down and bite your arse! lol!

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Alethea


I think you have half of the right. I believe we are the anti-christ, because 666 is the number of MAN. Hell is Earth we are in hell, in order to get to GOD one must climb the tree and go through Revelations to get to GOD. I believe the people who have the number of Man are the people stuck in the material world, TV, Sports, Drama, Celebrity Life, things to keep us down here, money and so on. In order to break free one must give up materialistic ideals to get to God, or Jesus. One must let go of their EGO which is keeping us slaves down here, and when we give up th EGO and plunge into the waters then and only then can we be reborn.

I am trying to understand this myself. I have been doing a lot of reading and I read the Book of Revelations to my husband this weekend, and we are trying decipher the code, we believe we will all go through Revelations, because we both believe from what we are reading, that it will be a Spiritual, physical, mental process that we will all go through eventually. I think we will all get there through our own means, The Tarot, Inititaion, The Qabalah, astrology, chakras, meditation, because they are all the same thing.

I would suggest for those interested read Jung, Alice Bailey, Anna Kingsford, Dion Fortune, and look into what they are saying. The OP is on the right track , you just have to connect the dots.

For those of you that are fussing about this thread, making statements that Jesus did not exsist and such, why did you read the thread.

Move on to threads that interest you, and leave the believers alone, as this thread clearly does not pertain to non believers.

What do you really gain by mocking those that believe in a higher power. It reminds me of elementry students that make fun of younger children that believe in Santa Clause. It only makes you feel better about yourself, and really does nothing to change the other persons mind. In fact it just makes them that much more stubborn.

As a believer, I say God Bless you and I hope you find the truth someday. But, I do not wish to judge your beliefs, but I do pity you.

Originally posted by Alethea
Perhaps we should discuss the Beast Network. Can you think of any particular groups that require a loyalty oath from members with a hierarchy that seems endless?

Hi Alethea! I love your thread. You've managed to shed new light on this topic. Some posting might disagree but they stay to do so.

The requiring an oath seems to be the key to all of this. When we think about something requiring an oath of loyalty, it brings to my mind that at some point in the future your loyalty will be tested. And more so at some point in the future you will be asked to agree with and back something that you currently don't know and if you were privy to it now you would not agree to an oath of loyalty. The oath allows time for blackmailing.

If any concept or group were true and righteous, an oath would never be necessary. If any concept or group were true there would be universal agreement and enrollment. We would all know, there would be universal membership. By birth we all belong to such a group and know such a truth. We are all only human and we're all in this together. But you knew that and for some it just isn't enough.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Most people think the Antichrist is singular, in the way of the a person place or thing, but it isn't.

1st John 2:22 - "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is ANTICHRIST, that denieth the Father and the Son."
1st John 2:18 - "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there MANY ANTICHRISTS"
1st John 4:3 - "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of ANTICHRIST"
2nd John 7 - "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an ANTICHRIST."

It represents ALL that are opposed to God's government and Christ 1000 reign.

Christ 1000 reign - where is that from?

As for the beast he represents all the political systems so basically the UN countries, and since they have been hijacked by the corporatist's agenda via the different commercial industrial complexes, but especially the banking cartels.

Now here you got it partially right, if you take in consideration the whole chapter of Rev. 13 , not only the last verses.

verse 1 - "And saw a beast rise up out of the sea"
First beast mentioned.

verse 4 - "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast..."
The bible says this beast is being worshipped, so being a religious power.

verse 7 - "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."
Looks like this religious power is a worldwide church, and it's not on the "good" side like mentioned few posts ago.

verse 8 - "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb"
Worshipping the wrong guy, that puts himself "vicariously" in place of god. (antichrist?)

verse 11 - "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth..."
WOW another beast?

verse 12 - "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast"
Sounds like this second beast is a political power, that will join the first beast

Then you have the final part that talks about the number and stuff.
So you have the religious power and the political power. Many antichrists, like the bible says...

If you are looking for the word "pope" in the bible it's not there, since the Revelation was written before the catholic church was born.

I decided to reply to your thread "The Beast and The Antichrist Have Been Revealed" in a simular ILK......
ILK which coincidently are the 3 letters contained in MILK.........
Annoying isn't it :bash: When you say revealed it means Revealed . Church

Originally posted by Alethea

Who would dare to say that he is allowed to rule over the whole of mankind with the full authority of God? Who could say that he has authority over the entire world because he is "in place of" Christ? Did Christ really delegate an authority on earth to rule mankind?

By definition, the word "vicar" is a representative or anyone acting "in the person of" or as an agent for a superior. Does Christ have a vicar on earth? Would you believe it if someone claimed that authority? How would one prove that he was so "chosen"? Bloodline, shrewd trickery, gradually building political power? How would one become so entitled?

Jesus said the only substitute would be the Holy Spirit:
John 14:16 - "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; the Spirit of truth"

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Jesus named Peter as the head of his earthly church.

The bible does not point that out. Actually it says:
Ephesians 2:20-21 - "Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone..."

So if you ask Peter, he would reply:
1 Peter 2:4-10 - "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God"
Here he's talking about Jesus...

Mathews 23:8-10 "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, Christ; and all ye are brethren... Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, Christ"

1st church council, was convened by James, not Peter (Acts 15:13, 19) the bible suggests that James was their leader at that meeting.

If Peter was a pope, then the apostle Paul would not forget him in his list of church's duties 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps...

If Peter was a pope, the disciples would no fight about hierarchy (Mat. 18:1)

If Peter was a pope, what about his marriage? (Mat. 8:14)

If Peter was a pope, would no deny Christ (Luke 22:57), would not deny being an apostle (22:58), would not deny an obvious truth (22:60), would not have to justify himself before the church for baptizing Cornelius (Acts 11:1-11), would be in the first position not second as a church foundation (Acts 2:9)

In Revelation 21:14 John describes the Holy City as having 12 foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, not a single one in special, all the same...

Mat. 16:18 - "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter(petros in greek) and upon this rock(petra, not petros) I will build my church"
Petros is a fragment of a rock, a small stone.
Petra is a solid rock, so in the same sentence we have Jesus saying Peter (you) are a small broken stone, and upon this rock(Jesus himself) I'll build my church


In fact, we may also quote a roman catholic book:

"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt, xvi. 18, John xxi) No one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors... they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Koman bishops...

reply to post by Hemisphere

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by Alethea
Perhaps we should discuss the Beast Network. Can you think of any particular groups that require a loyalty oath from members with a hierarchy that seems endless?

The requiring an oath seems to be the key to all of this. When we think about something requiring an oath of loyalty, it brings to my mind that at some point in the future your loyalty will be tested. And more so at some point in the future you will be asked to agree with and back something that you currently don't know and if you were privy to it now you would not agree to an oath of loyalty. The oath allows time for blackmailing.

If any concept or group were true and righteous, an oath would never be necessary. If any concept or group were true there would be universal agreement and enrollment. We would all know, there would be universal membership. By birth we all belong to such a group and know such a truth. We are all only human and we're all in this together. But you knew that and for some it just isn't enough.

I agree with Hemisphere on this, about the oaths and blackmail.
A group of people just interested in teaching would simply teach freely.
A secret society would have many levels or stages of initiation.

I have been a deacon, elder, and teacher. I preached my share of sermons, and offered shared communion. Never did I require payment or any commitment to myself, as if I were something other than the people I served. I left because I had nothing left to offer, no further step for them to move up to. And because I began to doubt that biblical doctrine was much of an improvement for any one.

There was another elder who reached level 12 or something as a Mason, and people considered that to be some kind of honor. I had no idea until I got on this forum that these levels just seem to go up, up, up. Is it possible that a person could reach level 666? I've got no way of knowing one way or another. But all these secret levels of advancement doesn't seem to lend to freedom, but rather a dependence upon some society that would lend itself to getting someone to go against their conscience in order to advance the agenda of the society.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by pthena]

Originally posted by 12voltz
The title is very misleading,i was expecting a name damn it,instead i read a sermon which i couldnt understand.

www.belowtopsecret.com...




p.s.

bible thumpers who support the one who said the ten commandments:

what good does it do to quote the verses and burn calories memorizing them without applying them?


say + ten = sayten = satan.


rule #1 = "No God but me"

so, the giver of the first commandment was a self proclaimed atheist.
fits the description, at least.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by Alethea

 

So you got your batteries all charged up at church yesterday and now want to inflict your mythological nonsense upon the rest of us.


Please provide corroborative evidence the jesus (the one that appears in the new testament) was a real historical figure and all the accounts of this character are true. We then may proceed to discuss his nemesis and you may also provide evidence for his reality.

I find this particularly troublesome. Forgive me if I am taking this thread too far away from the spirit in which it was begun, but I felt it necessary to respond to the above posting.

As a preface, let me say that although I consider my myself a Christian, I do not subscribe to the modern fundamentalist approach wherein a quotation or two from the New Testament, usually taken wildly out of the context in which it was written, suffices to end all further debate on a particular issue. Nor do I subscribe to any millenarianism. For two thousand years, there have existed people who believed that the Second Coming would occur in their time. It is clear, to me at least, that even St. Paul believed that the Parousia would happen during his lifetime.

Many Christians become overly concerned with the historical authenticity of the Bible. Television's History Channel leads me to believe that such pursuits are a regular cottage industry. My own view is that however interesting this may be, it misses an essential point. The principal tenets of Christianity are: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This is certainly preferable to the very likely even more ancient maxim: kill your neighbor before he kills you. Various sects have added further rules and strictures over time. So be it. The important parts, as given above, are really all that matters.

Now, what the author of the rather glib request that I have reproduced in this article neglects to tell us is what this corroborative evidence is supposed to look like, i.e., what would be accepted as corroborative evidence? I strongly suspect that the request was merely a rhetorical one. I suppose that the unspoken logic of the rhetoric runs something like this: I conclude at the outset that no such historical personage existed, therefore, no credible evidence of such a personage can exist. Hence, I am safe in requesting such evidence, since none can be produced. Furthermore, if anyone claims to have such evidence, I will simply call into question the veracity of it.

But let us assume that what is meant is a contemporaneous written document, distinct from the New Testament or the Christian Apocrypha, which refers to Jesus. Well, such a document exists. In the 90's C.E., Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, and in it there are two references to Jesus. The first is a direct one in Book 18, and this has become known as the Testimonium Flavianum. The second is in Book 20 and deals with the murder of James, identified by Josephus as the brother of Jesus.

More on this as time permits, although I may take it to a different thread, rather than continuing to hijack the present one.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Spectral Norm]

reply to post by HSDA83


how many generations of children must be exposed to your bible quotes before those bible quotes become engrained upon peoples' dna?

or is your god's master plan of dna so flawed we need to see & here these quotes for more generations to come?

do you know how many times those same quotes have been posted here on ATS & BTS?


and furthermore, we are already more than 99.7+% the same dna.

how much more a clone do you want me to be?

how much more less of an individual does your god need me to be?

follow your quotes to where they lead. just don't walk over top of others to get there.

reply to post by spikey

So...according to you, the Hitler Youth was a Godly and good organisation was it?

There is not an organization on the face of the earth past and present that is Godly.

The current Pope certainly thought so evidenced by his membership during his youth.

He was conscripted into the Hitler Youth.

He also covered up the murder of Pope John Paul 1st too.

Proof . Show me proof!!

Before you spout you pious rubbish, perhaps you should read a few books and historical accounts, other than the bible, you might actually learn some truth regarding who you hold to be godly and good.

Looks like you are the one who is spouting out rubbish my friend

reply to post by Quadrivium

Lucky for you Djin that God gave you the ability of free choice and freedom of thought. I am happy that you seem able to form your own opinions on this subject but in the end your opinions DON'T MEAN SQUAT. Praying for you (and yes I do care enough about your fate to take time out to do that for you........ Your welcome)

Well thanks for the nice thoughts, that aside I'm sorry to say that if your god is the creator of "everything" then I would logically be of that creator.

However, should this be the case then I simply cannot perform any action that has not been designed by the creator.

If your god does not want me to do or think something and this god designed me and all that there is how could it be possible for it not to have its' way ?

For me to act in a manner contrary to the creator of "everything" requires the act to be outside of creation. If this is the case then the creator (your god) is not all that there is and if he is real would account for his being jealous of other gods.

Again, if this is the case and your god is but a toss of a coin of a pantheon , and let's be honest, who the hell wants to bow down to a tyrannical, genocidal, blood lusting, homophobic ,paranoid misogynist ?

Thanks my friend but if we have to love an invisible god that monitors our every though, I think I'd opt for a female type that's going to love me back, wawa we wa !

reply to post by oliveoil

There is not an organization on the face of the earth past and present that is Godly.

This would entirely depend on which god and what this god thought of the organization.

If there is an invisible man in the sky, may I suggest you not be so presumptuous and judge on its' behalf seeing as how these beings are supposed to have a tendency to commit some of the most atrocious acts against humans just for kicks.

reply to post by Spectral Norm

Now, what the author of the rather glib request that I have reproduced in this article neglects to tell us is what this corroborative evidence is supposed to look like, i.e., what would be accepted as corroborative evidence? I strongly suspect that the request was merely a rhetorical one. I suppose that the unspoken logic of the rhetoric runs something like this: I conclude at the outset that no such historical personage existed, therefore, no credible evidence of such a personage can exist. Hence, I am safe in requesting such evidence, since none can be produced.

How about a body (or remains) in a tomb, an inscription bearing the name jesus son of joseph but born of a virgin mary. Brother of James Judas Simon and judas plus sisters.

The heir to the throne of david crucified by the romans , the guy that walked on water raised dead people out of the grave etc etc.

That would be a pretty good start ,

Wait a minute, didn't a jesus son of joseph turn up at talpiot ? Oh, that's right rejected by Christians as the wrong one because their jesus disappeared into the sky, how convenient.

Josephus -

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ !
Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

www.jesusneverexisted.com...

reply to post by HSDA83


I believe in all the Sacred Scripture you quoted 100%. It is all true. But where does any of it refute my points?

Regarding Peter's wife:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12

BIBLICAL ESTABLISHMENT OF PETER'S ELEVATION AND PAPACY

Jesus gives Peter the keys to Heaven, blesses him, and names him the rock upon which he will build his earthly Church, upon which Peter will bind and loose (permit and forbid) on heaven and earth!! He does this with no other Apostle.

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus tells Peter to confirm his brother Apostles.

"But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
Luke 22:32

Jesus reinstates Peter after the Resurrection, even after all Apostles (with the exception of John) deserted Him and commands him three times to Shepherd His Flock.
"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." John 21:15-17


Peter is the predominent Apostle mentioned in the Gospels and always the first to be mentioned. He is the one in Acts who takes the initiative and determines that Judas is to be replaced. He is the predominent Apostle throughout the first 15 chapters of Acts. Only he is the one who speaks and everyone else stops arguing in Acts 15. Whereas in the establishment, predominance and authority of the Church is Luke’s concern in the first 15 chapters of Acts, who is foremost except Peter, including the establishment of the rule that no one is forced to be circumcised in order to be Christian, a huge change in doctrine for the people of God? This is in rule over the other apostles, exactly as spoken of by Jesus in the establishment of Peter as head of the Church.

Seriously, one would have to be really biased to read the Gospels and not see that Peter was given pre-eminent dominence over all other Apostles. He is in front of all action. Jesus was readying him for the task of authority over all.

Paul exhibits authority over churches as an Apostle, and gives authority over disciples, but we see his travels and his work with the Gentiles. He was truly great, however, there is a hierarchy present. Bishops, disciples...

At any rate, I enjoy discussing this. Thanks for your input



[edit on 2-8-2010 by thegoodearth]