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.

 

Another View of the Anti-Christ

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
We all know that Revelation tells us the number of the Beast is 666. The Bible also informs us that he has a mark and that no one can buy and sell without this mark. Looking through the Bible to see what it says about the number, and it occurs two more times.

Everyone has attempted to put a name to the number for many years, but I am not mathematical so I never understand how to add that up, so I will do this in a way that those of us who do not use math, can figure this out.

The first time we see the number in the Bible occurs in

1 Kings 10:14Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,


With the corresponding verse

2 Chronicles 9:13Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and threescore and six talents of gold;
These may be two separate verses but they account the same thing.

The other time it occurs is

Ezra 2:13The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.


Everyone is also familiar with the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Many times people have conjectured about what each section represents and we know that Daniel applied these sections as kingdoms and because the last kingdom was not known yet, scholars have said the feet represent the Holy Roman Empire, therefore saying this is representative as someone from the Catholic Church, but I would like to address that if I may.
Daniel informs us that the feet were a mixture of iron and clay, or metal and earth. People know about the Western leg of the Roman Empire, without realizing the Eastern leg. That Eastern leg is what I would like to address here.

The Eastern leg of the Roman Empire was Byzantium, based in Constantinople. We know that when the Western Empire fell, the Eastern was still active, but let's consider a moment here, and the one kingdom that most people overlook, is the Ottoman Empire.

Considering the Ottoman Empire existed in Turkey, it replaced the Holy Roman Empire and there have been many rulers of the Ottoman Empire. I would like now to explain my theory, the book of Revelation says that no one may buy or sell unless he has the number or the mark of the beast. This deals with money, and it is a reference back to Solomon. We know that Solomon received the talents of gold to furnish the temple. So, could there be another Solomon? Yes, indeed there was and that was Suleiman the Magnificent.

Understand this...
Daniel 7:24 says

And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.


Suleiman was the 10th ruler in the Ottoman Empire.He was known as a goldsmith, so what does this mean? Gold was coined in his rule, and he fashioned a coin with his image on it. This also indicates he forced the tax of Islamic rule.Following here is a description of Suleiman.

His Imperial Majesty The Sultan Süleyman I, Sovereign of the Imperial House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, Emperor of The Three Cities of Constantinople, Adrianople and Bursa, and of the Cities of Damascus and Cairo, of all Azerbaijan, of the Magris, of Barka, of Kairuan, of Aleppo, of Arabic Iraq and of Ajim, of Basra, of El Hasa, of Dilen, of Raka, of Mosul, of Parthia, of Diyar-i bekr, of Kurdistan, of Cilicia, of the Vilayets of Erzurum, of Sivas, of Adana, of Karaman, of Van, of Barbary, of Abyssinia, of Tunisia, of Tripoli, of Damascus, of Cyprus, of Rhodes, of Candia, of the Vilayet of the Morea, of the Marmara Sea, of the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and also its coasts, of Anatolia, of Rumelia, Baghdad, Greece, Turkistan, Tartary, Circassia, of the two regions of Kabarda, of Georgia, of the plain of Kypshak, of the whole country of the Tartars, of Kefa and of all the neighbouring countries, of Bosnia and its dependencies, of the City and Fort of Belgrade, of the Vilayet (District) of Serbia, with all the castles, forts and cities, of all Albania, of all Iflak and Bogdania, as well as all the dependencies and borders, and many other countries and cities.


Here it says he was emperor of the THREE HOLY CITIES. The three kings were of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.And it is most important to realize that the Ottoman Empire from Turkey was exactly where the churches of Asia were located.

This is a sequin with his mark

Not only was Suleiman considered the golden emperor, but he ruled during the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.


Suleiman was born in Trabzon, on the COAST OF THE BLACK SEA. We see in World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany, to disastrous results. The Allies declared war on the the Ottoman Empire and it was abolished in 1923. This was a wound to the head.

Revelation13: 7And 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. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. 11And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12And 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, whose deadly wound was healed.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
the anti-Christ could go and f-ck himself. you don't need gold or money to survive. everything needed to survive on earth is free.

just the knowledge is forgotten.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


John says the beast was like a leopard. There are indeed Arabian leopards...

And here is an image of Suleiman
the description of Suleiman is

An early description of Suleiman, a few weeks following his accession, was provided by the Venetian envoy Bartolomeo Contarini: "He is twenty-six years of age, tall, but wiry, and of a delicate complexion. His neck is a little too long, his face thin, and his nose aquiline. He has a shade of a moustache and a small beard; nevertheless he has a pleasant mien, though his skin tends to pallor. He is said to be a wise Lord, fond of study, and all men hope for good from his rule."


Pallor means pale, and we can see from the picture of the leopard, that Suleiman fits the description. Revelation also says he has the feet of a bear. What is most interesting is that Suleiman's favorite wife was from what we call the Ukraine now. Ukraine is part of the old Russian confederacy.

Suleiman was infatuated with Hürrem Sultan, a harem girl of Ruthenian origin, then part of Poland. In the West foreign diplomats, taking notice of the palace gossip about her, called her "Russelazie" or "Roxelana", referring to her Slavic origins.[51] The daughter of an Orthodox Ukrainian priest,[28] she was enslaved and rose through the ranks of the Harem to become Suleiman's favourite.


Russia is identified as the bear.

Originally, the term Rusyn was an ethnonym applied to the eastern Slavic-speaking ethnic group who inhabited the cultural and ethnic region of Rus' (Русь); often written through its Latin variant Ruthenia. The names "Ruthenians" or "Ruthenes" were the Latin terms referring to Slavic Orthodox people (those who spoke the Ruthenian dialect) who lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[1] They inhabited the area that is now Belarus, Ukraine and Western Russia (area around Bryansk, Smolensk, Velizh and Vyazma). It was also the ethnonym used by the Ukrainian kozaks to describe themselves.


He had the mouth of a lion, which means he spoke as king.I believe that all of this refers to Suleiman and the desire to revive the Ottoman Empire, the wound that healed.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
the anti-Christ could go and f-ck himself. you don't need gold or money to survive. everything needed to survive on earth is free.

just the knowledge is forgotten.


Pretty much...this



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Apparently in Old Testament times, there were bears and lions, and even dragons in the Canaan area.
Having a bear image would not be specific to a certain area and would have been more about its behavior when used as a symbolic image. It is general understood that the bear was the Medo/Persian empire which came out of a relative wilderness and just took over a civilization which already existed and was not something they could have created themselves, the Medes especially, being considered barbaric.
edit on 9-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Apparently in Old Testament times, there were bears and lions, and even dragons in the Canaan area.
Having a bear image would not be specific to a certain area and would have been more about its behavior when used as a symbolic image. It is general understood that the bear was the Medo/Persian empire which came out of a relative wilderness and just took over a civilization which already existed and was not something they could have created themselves, the Medes especially, being considered barbaric.
edit on 9-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Jim Dewey, I don't think it had anything to do with barbarism...but Russia identifies itself as the bear


The Russian Bear is a national personification for Russia, used in cartoons, articles and dramatic plays at least since the 17th century, and relating alike to Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union and the present-day Russian Federation. It often was and is used by Westerners, to begin with especially in Britain and later also in the US, and not always in a flattering context — on occasion used to imply that Russia is "big, brutal and clumsy" (see 19th century cartoon below). The bear image was, however, on various occasions (especially in the 20th century) also taken up by Russians themselves. Having the teddy bear "Misha" as the mascot of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games — boycotted by numerous countries due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — was evidently intended to counter the "big and brutal Russian Bear" image with a small, cuddly and smiling bear. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was some support in the Russian Parliament for having a bear as the new Russian coat of arms — with the proposers pointing out that "Russia is anyway identified in the world with the Bear" — though eventually it was the Tsarist coat of arms of the Double-headed eagle that was restored. Later, the bear was taken up as the symbol of the United Russia Party, which dominates the political life in Russia since the early 2000s. Coincidentally, the surname of Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president elected in 2008, is the possessive adjective of медведь: i.e. his surname means "a bear's".


The Russians identified themselves as the bear. This is an historical fact that has nothing to do with the Bible.

And Medvedev means "the bear's".



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

This is an historical fact that has nothing to do with the Bible.
I agree with this.

Daniel is no mystery and has been figured out a long time ago and it had to do with the situation Judea found itself in during the Maccabean wars.
edit on 9-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

This is an historical fact that has nothing to do with the Bible.
I agree with this.

Daniel is no mystery and has been figured out a long time ago and it had to do with the situation Judea found itself in during the Maccabean wars.
edit on 9-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


If that is the case, then why did John write Revelation long after the Maccabeans?
edit on 1/9/2012 by WarminIndy because: apostraphes only belong to possessives



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

This is an historical fact that has nothing to do with the Bible.
I agree with this.

Daniel is no mystery and has been figured out a long time ago and it had to do with the situation Judea found itself in during the Maccabean wars.
edit on 9-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


And at the time Daniel wrote it, Russia was not known as Russia, but Magog. Russia was not yet known as the bear.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

If that is the case, then why did John write Revelation long after the Maccabean's?

I'm not following your logic here.
Revelation mentions a beast with feet like a bear's.
Revelation is a Christian writing, where Daniel was for the benefit of the Judean people.
Daniel was expecting a great war where there would be a eschatological world which came out of it.
Revelation was in the context of exactly that sort of war but obviously that new world to come, did not come, instead, it looked like the forces of evil prevailed. So it goes on to explain how appearances are deceiving and really there is a spiritual war going on where evil is being defeated.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

If that is the case, then why did John write Revelation long after the Maccabean's?

I'm not following your logic here.
Revelation mentions a beast with feet like a bear's.
Revelation is a Christian writing, where Daniel was for the benefit of the Judean people.
Daniel was expecting a great war where there would be a eschatological world which came out of it.
Revelation was in the context of exactly that sort of war but obviously that new world to come, did not come, instead, it looked like the forces of evil prevailed. So it goes on to explain how appearances are deceiving and really there is a spiritual war going on where evil is being defeated.


And yet both Daniel and John both speak of the same nations identified by animals. If Daniel was for the Judeans only, then why would John use the same identification to speak of a person who had not come yet. And you cannot say it was about Nero, because John wrote it after Nero.

They both spoke of a person who was coming in the future.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

And yet both Daniel and John both speak of the same nations identified by animals.

That's an idea I am familiar with where my church was teaching that stuff a long time ago and I was taught the same thin, but it is an assumption that the two books are talking about the same thing.
You can say that and I understand the rationale but it does not have to mean that.
I think Revelation was using Rome which was the power at that time, to illustrate how events worked out and how the earlier prophecies had already worked themselves out. It is a inclination with people to not accept that and think there are still all these other wonderful things which are going to happen in the future but that is just misunderstanding the nature of prophecy and taking these metaphorical images and expecting them to materialize in the normal world where their proper place is in the imagination to explain things which are otherwise explainable.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

And yet both Daniel and John both speak of the same nations identified by animals.

That's an idea I am familiar with where my church was teaching that stuff a long time ago and I was taught the same thin, but it is an assumption that the two books are talking about the same thing.
You can say that and I understand the rationale but it does not have to mean that.
I think Revelation was using Rome which was the power at that time, to illustrate how events worked out and how the earlier prophecies had already worked themselves out. It is a inclination with people to not accept that and think there are still all these other wonderful things which are going to happen in the future but that is just misunderstanding the nature of prophecy and taking these metaphorical images and expecting them to materialize in the normal world where their proper place is in the imagination to explain things which are otherwise explainable.


But more world powers were to come, and greater than Rome. For instance, the British Empire. Are we going to assume that God would not let us know that? Those people saw into a future beyond their own time, and they prophesied the end of the world and the nations involved. We are perhaps living in those times, maybe not, maybe those times are for a future beyond what we know. But we can rest assured, God knows those times and allowed us to know about them.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
should'nt we consider who Christ is defined as first?

I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Corinthians11



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
You keep trying to find anything that might even remotely link Antichrist with Islam.


Let me spare you the work: Antichrist is Dajjal - we know he is a liar and a deceiver and we will fight against him.

So, it can't be one of "us".


But, why bother - you will simply create another Thread to attempt to write ANYTHING against Islam.


This is funny - coming from a person who even refuses to read the Qur'an, and is content reading what some noob said in some "website" ABOUT the Qur'an.



Boy, how you will be surprised when in a few years all this is over and you finally realize all you believed in was a BIG FAT LIE.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

But more world powers were to come, and greater than Rome.

I think of myself as an expert in the history of the British Empire. Now that does not mean that I would be in relation to people who are actual academically recognized experts, but on a level of an ordinary person who decides they want to specialize in a specific field of study, and do it, and devote lots of hours over lots of years, involved in fulfilling that aspiration.
(am I supposed to be making an actual point, here? Maybe in a way, by not commenting on your next [that came after the segment I quoted] suggestion, and leaving it at that)
The prophecy of Daniel was, '70 weeks are determined on your people.' This is a sort of window of importunity in which Israel is given the chance to redeem themselves (meaning to demonstrate that they deserved to have a restoration back to where they were before the incursions by the Assyrians), and then the end, and then another sort of world comes into being. The reality that resulted after the Daniel book was circulated was that this idea of their monarchy being restored by the Persians had fallen through with the advent of the Greek Empire which Judean elements felt obligated to fight against, and this turned out badly, meaning they were never able to achieve a sort of stability to where there was a general prosperity for the average person and instead you had constant kidnappings and murder and theft going on in the general milieu of constant warfare moving north and south, back and forth across the land. That situation is probably what would inspire the image of the feet of clay and iron, where there is never any solid sort of foundation for their dreamed-of kingdom.
Daniel is considered as a prophet today but his book did not make it into The Prophets, meaning the canon of the recognized prophets because the canon was closed, or the scroll sealed, before the book was ever even considered for adoption, so it is in the segment of miscellaneous items, mainly due to its late date, so it barely makes it into the Bible and escapes being an Intertestamental writing.
To get stability, you have the late Maccabean rulers making alliances with the Romans, who later turned these treaties into a claim for outright ruler-ship over the region and their one-time allies became provincial vassals. This had not all come about before Daniel, the book, was used in a cheer-leading sort of role through these tough times. There was still hope that things could go another way, but what came after that was this person Herod who more than anyone subjected the people of Judea under a Roman hegemony.
I think Revelation carries on from that point and continues the story, starting with Herod and his attempt to kill the baby Jesus. To make an actual point of this post, Rome is the power responsible for finally squashing the hopes of the practitioners of the Judaic religion, that there would be a restored Davidic kingdom, so this ties up the loose ends of what Daniel foretold, and this new apocalyptic world is what replaces that old hoped for thing and it is a rule of another sort of king, which is Jesus in Heaven, and this world or situation is what these hopes should find their fulfillment in, meaning there is nothing further down the road that is going to come about, than what has come about, being the rule of God, through His son, who also happens to be the son of David.
And for the fate of that earthly power that did the quashing, they get their own come-uppings.

edit on 10-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

You keep trying to find anything that might even remotely link Antichrist with Islam.

I hope no one is doing that.
The OP is saying something about the Turks, I think. And you know, there was a theory like that in the late eighteen hundreds and you did have the British Empire and the Russians fighting and it was called the Crimean War, where they were fighting over Turkish land. That theory of being foretold in Revelation has been refuted over and over since then and the OP is a little behind the times. It was a case of people seeing what is the headlines in the papers as being proof of the end of the world, just like people do today.

edit on 10-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi
You keep trying to find anything that might even remotely link Antichrist with Islam.


Let me spare you the work: Antichrist is Dajjal - we know he is a liar and a deceiver and we will fight against him.

So, it can't be one of "us".


But, why bother - you will simply create another Thread to attempt to write ANYTHING against Islam.


This is funny - coming from a person who even refuses to read the Qur'an, and is content reading what some noob said in some "website" ABOUT the Qur'an.



Boy, how you will be surprised when in a few years all this is over and you finally realize all you believed in was a BIG FAT LIE.




Actually, I have read the Quran. I have also read the Hadiths. You know so little about me, you love to assume anything because I don't agree with it. I am not some "noob", and I have known Muslims that I have worked with and had conversations with about faith. I have also known Hindus that I have worked with, and had many conversations with them as well about faith.

Please, don't be silly. It is easy to say you believe in Jesus, but you only believe in Him as the person who once existed. You never question your Mohammed, and the lies that he said people were allowed to do in the name of Islam, even if it is not to benefit the cause of Islam.

So let me ask you this, if your Mohammed endorses lying, could he have lied to Islamic people as well? Yes, he could and he did. In fact, Mohammed was never consistent in his theology, and only had issues with things at times when it was convenient. You really want me to post the Suras to prove this, or will you be like every other Muslim and say "You don't understand because you are not Muslim" followed by "You don't understand the context" followed by "You need to speak Arabic".

The arguments you gave in the other thread indicate only one thing, you follow the pattern you have been conditioned to believe. You consider yourself educated, but you have been educated by conditioning, nothing more. If you would like now, let's talk about the origin of the Quran itself.

Is there any, and I ask any, verse in the Quran of allah speaking directly to Mohammed, or did he merely say he was receiving revelation? If Mohammed merely received revelation, that many times was a surprise to his followers because it justified a sinful action by Mohammed, you have to question why Mohammed said it was a revelation.

Mohammed seems to have gotten a lot of approval to commit sin, because it was Mohammed who said it. What would you think if I said I was allowed to commit adultery, blatantly against the Ten Commandments, and do it because God said I was allowed to, because I suddenly had a revelation giving me permission?

It was Mohammed's lies that people know he was a false prophet. Now let's go on, if you wish to compare Jesus with Mohammed. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, His cousin, and a dove witnessed by John, sat on Jesus' shoulder and a voice spoke from heaven, witnessed by John and the people who were there, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him". Who witnessed the so-called prophethood of Mohammed? None other than Mohammed himself. There were no witnesses in the cave, in fact, Mohammed tells Khadijah and her uncle and says they said it was Jibrail. They were not witnesses to the event, so how can you even prove Mohammed actually was in the event? Can you prove, beyond Mohammed merely telling this, that the event ever happened?

Listen very carefully, just because Mohammed says it happens, does not mean it happened. Mohammed lied many times and endorsed lying, which is another contradiction with the Bible that says "thou shalt not lie".

Why would God make that exception for Mohammed and not make it for Jesus? You want to believe that allah and God are the same, but allah allows for things that God never did. You never question the lies of Mohammed, because you are afraid to do so. Mohammed lied about many things, including his "revelations". He was no prophet, he was an adulterer who sought to justify it by lying about it.

So show me one verse in the Quran of allah speaking directly to Mohammed. There are none. But the Bible is full of times God spoke directly to people, sometimes those people were blessed and sometimes those people were punished. David was punished for adultery, why not Mohammed? God and allah are not the same.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

You keep trying to find anything that might even remotely link Antichrist with Islam.

I hope no one is doing that.
The OP is saying something about the Turks, I think. And you know, there was a theory like that in the late eighteen hundreds and you did have the British Empire and the Russians fighting and it was called the Crimean War, where they were fighting over Turkish land. That theory of being foretold in Revelation has been refuted over and over since then and the OP is a little behind the times. It was a case of people seeing what is the headlines in the papers as being proof of the end of the world, just like people do today.

edit on 10-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Isn't it amazing about the British Empire? How one little, tiny island was able to take over the world. The sun never sat on the British Empire, was the old saying.

But you seem to not really read anything I post, what I said was when Daniel and John wrote these things, there were greater kingdoms yet to come. The British empire was merely used as an example of a greater kingdom than Rome ever was.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Let's start from the Suras that show Mohammed justified adultery.

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 311 Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."


What is Aisha saying here? She then replies (to Mohammed), "I feel that YOUR LORD hastens..." Isn't it striking here that Aisha would say "your lord" to Mohammed, and not say "allah"?

Why would Aisha say it was Mohammed's lord? Because it was Mohammed's lie, and she knew it.



new topics




 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join