It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Ron Paul the so called Anti-Christ?

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 


How many people are you all going to label Anti-Christ? Going to keep it up until you label someone that fits the description? Get this, St. John wrote Revelations on the Island of Patmos. Patmos is literally covered in Red Cap (Amanita caesarea) Mushrooms. Ever taken any? You hallucinate on them. Need I say more on the subject, or do you get it?

There is no distinct Anti-Christ, what there really is is an Anti-Christian Movement all over the world. Christians have tried to run the world for way too long, and many are tired of their lies and stories of monsters, and the fear factor they present to everyone. Let me educate you a little on your book, as I can see you have not researched it at all.

Bible Absurdities
www.infidels.org...

Bible Atrocities
www.infidels.org...

A List of Biblical Contradictions
www.infidels.org...

How the Jesus Myth was Created
home.iae.nl...
jesusneverexisted.com...

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
members.iimetro.com.au...

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
www.infidels.org...

How Many Has God Killed?
dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

The Origins of Christianity
www.sanfords.net...

Ancient Gods of the Bible
einhornpress.com...


no no, Amanita_caesarea is an edible with no toxicty, it is used in foods and was once considerd by royalty to be a prized novelty. You must be thinking of Amanita muscaria, but event his mushrooms is more of a dissaccioative than a psychedelic, which leads me to belive that even if he was eating Amanita muscaria, he could not have had those visions, and the only way he could have was if he was eating muchrooms containing pysilocybin.. Sorry i've studied some mycology, i dont buy your explaination



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 


There is no Anti-christ. It's just another fabricated boogeyman. While on the subject, There is only one God, and that is the Universe. ~SheopleNation


edit on 25-11-2011 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 


He simply does not have enough national support to even win the nomination and if he goes third party, Obama automatically wins. If he were to go independent it makes him a part of the Obama campaign.

I think he has reached his peak as far as support goes. I don't even think he runs expecting to win. There are other reasons these folks run. For instance it secures his popularity to keep his current job and guarantees an easy win for him running for his current seat.

Oddly enough, I'm watching the news now and they just showed him declining to rule out an independent run. If he does it means he wants Obama to win. No way around that.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 

No. If Ron Paul was the antichrist, MSNBC would have made him their poster child.

MSNBC's slogan would go from "Leaning Forward" and "Racists Are Everywhere" to "You're My B*%$# Now!"

When God finally shows up on scene, MSNBC will have to change their slogan to "Burning in Hates".

Ron Paul just wants freedom, and that is not a bad thing.

edit on 11/25/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


lol, agreed.

ask the trolls, there are plenty of them on the net.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


He has stated a while back that he is not seeking re-election as a congressman.

your theories are intriguing but off.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If you play RPs speeches backwards, every time he says "let's get out of Afaganistan" it sounds like," your welcome, Satan"!!

Go figure?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by XtraTL
 


You evidently did not see what I wrote here on the Anti-Christ.



Very few contemporary scholars debate the existence of Jesus, the establishment of the church in Jerusalem, the crucifixion of Christ, the fact that the early Christians preached about a resurrected Christ and an empty tomb in the very city they preached and the subsequent spread of the Christian gospel to Asia Minor and most of the known world.


That all may be so, but Philo of Alexandria was in a perfect position to write about Jesus, and he did not mention a word in his many writings. How do you explain that?


I call that cherry-picking. He was a philosopher who was born in Alexandria and went to Rome. We know little else about him. What we do know comes from the little he wrote about himself and a single paragraph in Josephus (who also wrote about Jesus). He also died in about 50AD, not long after the church established in Jerusalem. It's not much surprise to me that this philosopher didn't mention Jesus in his jewish philosophical writings.


Originally posted by autowrench
The name "antichrist" is only found in 1 John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, and 2 John 7.


Just because the word "antichrist" is only used in John's writing does not mean that the antichrist is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, albeit with different wording. No serious Christian theologian doubts the identification of the antichrist in at least Revelation, Daniel and 2 Thessalonians. The church has testified to this from the very earliest Christian writings, including by those who knew the apostles personally.


Originally posted by autowrench
The Apostle John was the only Bible writer to use the name antichrist. Have you researched on whether or not John really existed?


Yes. Irenaeus and Tertullian both record that Polycarp was a disciple of John. There is plenty of evidence that he existed, including of course John's actual writings.


Originally posted by autowrench
I find no evidence at all for any of the so called followers of Christ. Care to show proof?


I already showed evidence. Your claim is completely without basis and frankly a pretty remarkable conclusion to come to given the scholarship on this issue.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 


Ummm ... I would have been more concerned about Obama being an Anti-Christ than Ron Paul.

There won't be too many countries around the world celebrating Ron Paul's election to Presidency like there was for Obama.

Just saying. The Anti-Christ is suppose to be revered by most, if not nearly all people. Ron Paul is far from that.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


he's got good ideas mostly, with a few provisos, and he's not a sweetheart of the media, but if they are as manipulative as we've come to believe, that could be a big pretense anyway. i can't imagine him doing a hitler or a stalin or a mao or a pol pot on us, that's for sure.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
If Ron Paul is the antichrist, then he will have to win the election. The only way he can do that is get shot in the head, survive, and come up with a great solution the to Arab/Israel problem. He better get busy.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 


response to OP:
Ron Paul has been fighting FOR the masses and in favor of our Constitution for decades. He was also a family doctor before becoming a politician. I'm a very liberal, usually Democrat, but am changing my voter status to Republican just to vote for him in the Primaries. I recognize you're from Australia and likely have no idea what I'm talking with the voting, but manu people on here will.

I think he's an amazing guy, of the people, for the people! He'll also take a $370,000 pay CUT if he becomes President so his salary will match that of the common low-income person in America.

he's a good guy



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think he has reached his peak as far as support goes.


That's what they keep saying. A lot like that debt ceiling...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Isn't it the beast and dragon that pretty much everyone ends up worshipping? as in Rev 13:3,4 " I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshipped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him? "

Interesting that upon being made Prince Charles at his Royal Investiture in 1969, he was given his power by the dragon through the words of Queen Elizabeth.

At this event Queen Elizabeth II said to Charles...

"This dragon gives you your power, your throne, and your authority"
To which Charles responded with . . .
"I am now your Liege-man and worthy of your earthly worship."
"Liege-man" meaning Lord or Master.

Queen Elizabeth was quoting Revelation 13:2...And the beast which I saw was
like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth
as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat,
and great authority. The symbols (imagery) found on Prince Charles' Coat of
Arms matches exactly the biblical description. The key symbol is the red
dragon (the devil):"

"Daniel 9:26 tells us that this antichrist will be a 'prince' of the people
who destroyed the Temple in A.D. 70. Revelation 13:2 says this prince
receives his throne, power, and authority from the Red Dragon. Prince
Charles received his power, throne, and authority in 1969 at his
investiture where the Red Dragon of Wales was presented on banners,
flags, and cut right into the back rest of the throne in Caernarfon Castle. This
is the ensign that appeared on the Roman standards of Titus' army which
destroyed the temple in A.D. 70."
hebroots.org...

I myself think that think Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis Windsor (Prince William) will be the next king and, who knows, they may even coronate him under the name King Arthur, (they often have coronated kings under their second names in the past) that would be interesting.
If your looking for the beast I would say look at it being a Royal. Not saying it wil be Prince William, I just think it will possibly be a Royal.

As for Ron Paul, Nahh



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Yes obama was loved by nearly every nation, He did bring a sense of peace into the world through unity.
But Ron Paul seems to good to be true, Or then again maybe He is the real deal.

regardless to say, If elected He will do a good job of fixing most of America's wounds less to say.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkest4
I literally laughed "ha!" out loud when I was browsing ATS front page and read this title. Christians have literally named every single popular leader and politician as the "anti christ" in the last xxx years, it is so freaking ridiculous. Google any well known politician or leader's name + antichrist and you'll get a hit.

First off even if you take the giant leap of faith and believe in the bible, why do you christians always automatically assume you are living in the revelations times and that the "anti christ" will be seen in your life time? You do realize that literally every single generation has thought this same thing and been wrong? At what point do you start learning from the past?

Just shows how self centered and short-sighted humans are, always thinking the time they live in is the most significant.

People cite "o there's so much going on in the world now blahblah" yea ok, there's always stuff going on in the world. Reality is our current times are actually more tame and less deadly compared to some other points in history like World War 1/2, the great depression, the Spanish Flu, Civil War, the Crusades, etc. The only reason people even "feel" like "more stuff is going on" is now there is 1) more people thus more opportunities for things to happen and more importantly 2) internet and tv for instant news everywhere so it seems like so much more is going on when really its just easier to hear about it all now when in the past you would have no clue what is going on across the world.

Anyways, no Ron Paul is not the "anti christ".

edit on 25-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)


why are you so quick to believe it is Christians who do all that smearing?

it is actually a popular campaign tactic.

--------

otherwise, very interesting biblical stuff in this thread


I hope to find time to dig into some things being said in here.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 


it's in one of his speeches. he referred to how the church use to manage the hospitals back in the day and that he thought that would be the better option. now the only way they could do that is if we paid money to them to handle it in the form of tithes (a church tax, essentially). but since a good bit of the health care red tape would be gone and many in the church work for the church for free and are sustained by the church's financial base, derived from tithes, it would cut out alot of the cost associated with health care, because you aren't paying high dollar for them, as they only get what the church gives them (they are essentially volunteers). probably would help to read up on how the RCC handled hospitals and paid for the costs, but i think it's pretty obvious how they did it thru tithes



I really do NOT think that sounds like a good idea.

for many obvious reasons I hope to not have to point out.

I can't believe he would even make a suggestion like that.
As good and kindly of a face as he may have, there is something very wrong with that idea.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerstellarOne
Yes obama was loved by nearly every nation,


Except his own!

But, he was the only other viable choice besides McCain/Palin.

If the Antichrist comes in our time, and is an American, he will have no problem using the corrupt political system to be president, if he wants it.

It sure as hell, isn't Ron Paul.




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You have got to be kidding me!

If Ron Paul is the anti-Christ, then I'm freaking Jesus Christ!

Are you actually serious, or did you post this nonsense to get your thread on the front page?

Ron Paul is the only non-puppet candidate that has stood his ground over the years. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a chance of not giving in to the pressure of lobbyists, congress, shadow governments, money, greed and evil corporations.

RON PAUL 2012!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The ignorance is strong with this one.

First of all, how can you call his followers BLIND? Of all insults to use against a group, calling Paul supporters blind followers is the STUPIDEST one you could use. People support Ron Paul because they aware and paying attention, not because they a blindly following some popular candidate.

Second of all, Paul in favor of a one world currency? Seriously? Are you talking about his support of the gold standard? If so, what an under-handed and warped accusation that would be.

And as far as him being a Mason? If this is even proven, which I have no idea if it is (because I really couldn't care less) so what? Both my grandfathers were Masons, I have Mason friends, who also have Mason family, friends, and so on and so on. This whole Mason thing has got to be the most immature way of insulting a candidate that I have ever seen.

reply to post by jude11
 


Obama basically came from nowhere, with no record, and NO MESSAGE. Him saying "change" doesn't mean anything. People who actually are paying attention in politics would have known this is how it would go down before he even got elected. I did. To compare Paul to Obama is just absurd.

Not only has Ron Paul laid out his message, and his plans, in a completely straightforward message, he also had DECADES of history to back up that he is HONEST, actually believes what he is saying, and will stick to his guns. Obama had NONE of this. He had no actual message, no actual plans, and no history. Obama appealed to people that like to be hip, and feel happy about absolutely nothing.

Paul appeals to people who are socially and politically aware, and know the role government is supposed to play based on the Constitution of The United States of America. Obama and Paul have nothing in common other than the fact they both walk on two legs and sit down while taking a crap.




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join