If he's a pimp then why cant the U.S find him

Perhaps I should, but I don't recall in my 4 years at Catholic School, discussing to any great extent, the Book of Revelation. I have read only exerpts from it, sometimes hear readings from it at mass, and scanned thru PLaw's link. I don't claim to be an authority, yet being a person of faith, I do find it interesting.

However, doesn't it also say that this "anti-Christ will be followed and loved (at least at first) by multitudes of people???? Also, I know about the reference to the unrest in the Middle East, but does it actually say this Anti-Christ will be of Mid-Eastern decent or is a matter of interpretation?

One last thing, is it so impossible to believe that one day this world we know would/could no longer exist?

TIS

Not at all.

Not at all. [/b][/quote]Fuggaboutit.You wont be here when it happens anyway

I'm surprised this thread survived the immediate degredation from plawrence and SC. Putin wouldn't have beaten Muhammad Ali, no... but why do you think I have some obsession with the one thread I created in the sports forum?

There are several serious theories, from the Bible and scholars. Widely accepted is the idea that the third anti-Christ rise in Eastern Europe.

Stalin is not the third anti-Christ. The only characteristic that matches was that he's from Eastern Europe and he was an evil dictator. The time period was wrong, as there's a certain separation between the second and third. And, the third anti-Christ's rise and subsequent empire will result in war, WWIII. The Soviet Union collapsed with no world war. Stalin wasn't the anti-Christ.

Putin, Pat? Putin is an ex-KGB man. Look at all of the democracies he is taking away in Russia. He's slowly turning the country around, yes... into a dictatorship.

I'm glad that you know who is and who isn't the 3rd anti-Christ. Putin and Bush are very good friends and so what if Putin was a former KGB chief? Big deal. Just because he once thought one way doesn't mean he still does think that way. -Pat

Just when we thought we were out.....

Haha yea I know nothing about the Koran, but I know alot about the bible, I will find the verse I was reffering to....sometime, one of my english teachers were showing me it awhile ago.

To answer the religious person in this thread, as I have read recently in several sites and shows, we will know who the third Antichrist is, when he signs a seven year treaty between the Jews and Arabs, allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple destroyed in A.D. 70, and allowing them to sacrifice in it.

Why is Napoleon the 2nd antichrist? From what I learned about him, he didnt seem that evil, and I dont see why he could be perceived as the antichrist. There was much worse than him.

From what I read, they both wanted one world governments.

For instance, the Europeon Union is supposedly the stage for the Antichrist. Eventually under his charismatic rule he will create a "Final World Government" ruled by one. Halfway through the "7 Year" peace treaty with Israel, he will put an image of himself in the temple, and anyone who refuses to bow to him as god will be killed. As I said this is all read from various sites a shows. :p

http://www.ldolphin.org/kingdom/ch7.html

http://home.pages.at/stargazers/endworld/fin-signs/05-the-ac.htm

Napoleon, an anticrist? Please, don't make me laugh. Napoleon was just a man consumed by ambition, and, reaching my own conclusions, he wasn't really evil. There were 8 coalitions formed against him, and at least 6 were started by the Austrians and the English. Those nations were constantly attacking him, and Napoleon, taking advantage of his genious, always broke up their attacks and was able to keep more territories under his rule, but this was merely the consequence of the constant provokation started by Austria and England. Now, his invasion of Spain was not really justified, and I admit it was caused by his desire to conquer that country without many reasons. As a matter of fact, he just felt like attacking Spain.

Now, he always thought Russia was a very important ally and as the Tsar was starting to dissolve their alliance by refusing to stay in the Continental System (Destroying English economy by blocking all the ports in Europe). He HAD to attack Russia as he could not face a coalition formed by the major powers in Europe AND Russia. He would have been overwhelmed, but by this invasion, he lost 500,000 men and temporarily, his crown.

Now, Napoleon at least had a cause, but he did not annihilate 8 million people for racial reasons. Napoleon can't be considered an antichrist. Those million people dead throughout the Napoleonic Wars were not really his fault directly. Better ask the Austrians, the Prussians, the English and the Russians.

Out of curiosity, can somebody define "Anti-Christ" for me?

Mick

Don't you watch movies? Next thing I probably have to define for you is aliens. [sarcasm]

Antichrist: n. 1. An enemy of Christ. 2. The epithet of the great antagonist who was expected by the early Church to set himself up against Christ in the last days before the Second Coming. 3. A false Christ.

Except for number 2 definition, if you are a pretty strong religious person you can call whomever you don't like an antichrist. It might get serious after a little while

I find that whenever such predicition is made in an ancient text, people let their imagination run wild. There was a tv show called "first wave". Its basic story line was that Nostradamus predicted that earth will be destroyed by 3 giant waves, and our hero goes around trying to stop the first wave. The premise was that the aliens were the ones to attack earth. Many times, the expected first wave would turn out to be not the real one. I think it applies to the 3rd anti-christ prediction as well.

I wouldn't even say he, or even Hitler was an Antichrist. The Antichrist has yet to come, supposedly from the Europeon Union.

^ Weren't there supposed to be three antichrists? Napoleon and Hitler weren't anti-Christ, but they were antichrists. It's not like they needed to be against Jesus in fact they were both Christians, and I believe Hitler was pretty religious. But what they did in life was opposite of what Christ taught and on a grand scale.

I actually never heard of it. The only time I heard them mentioned together was in the Nostrodamous documentory "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow." The Antichrist will supposedly come out of the European Union.

A major part in this is the predictions of Albert Pike in the 1800's.

That's an interesting thing you posted, but how can it be from the 1800's as he refers to "Nazism," since 'Nazi' was a term used for the National Socialist party of Germany in the 1930's.... I'm pretty sure there never was such a word before that, and plus as the Nazis were originally the German Workers Party, I'm almost certain the terms "Nazi" and "Nazism" were a product of the 1920's or 30's. So, until that if figured out, I can't really take anything else there very seriously, unless of course these were written in the 30's or later and you mis-typed the 1800's date. Or, lastly, I could be wrong about "Nazism" as a term.

They were predictions.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm

It's possible it could be false though.

I've visited that site before... it's interesting, but... well, I don't know about it. The predictions must be pretty accurate, being as Nazi was slang for National Socialist, and since their name was decpetive as they were opposites of Socialists, Fascists, the specifics seem a little... hoaxy.

I hope you are not serious about this statement. No one can have "cause" to kill innocent people for any reason. If you send your army to invade any country and kill innocent people, their death IS your fault directly, and it is really an evil, what could be considered more evil than that?
But it doesn't make person the exact antichrist, I agree. There were so many really terrible people in history - it would make too much antichrists.
And Putin - come on. That's really a big laugh!