The Anti-Christ Revisited

[dcookcan]

I was searching through the old posts on this forum yesterday with respect to discussions on the Anti-Christ. I was surpried that I found no discussion on Prince Charles. I my opinion, he is a very interesting candidate. Read the following links for justification:

http://www.lionlamb.net/pub2001.htm (Select "The Prince is to Come" and hit go).

http://www.prophecyhouse.com/

Some good reading and compelling arguements. What are your thoughts people?

 

[LastDayRemnant]

The beast (antichrist) has to be someone who was alive BEFORE AD 96.
Look at the qualifications to be the antichrist.

Remember it is AD 96 when the Angel is talking to John. That is very important to remember.

Rev,17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

He was before AD 96, then wasn't alive in AD 96 and then he will come out of the bottemless pit in the future.

Rev,17
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So it says the beast is dead in AD 96 and then it goes on to say that five kings have fallen. So it has to be one of the fallen kings BEFORE AD 96.

 

[dcookcan]

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. DAN 9:26

He is identified as a prince that is to come, not a king.

John was shown a vision that was to transpire in the future.

Rev 1:19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

Rev 4:11 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."

So when "current" future events were shown to John in Rev 17, they were still future events.

 

[LastDayRemnant]

The prince was titus who destroyed the city in AD 70. It says the PEOPLE of the prince who will destroy the city which means he will be a roman. And John was shown the future of the antichrist. He said he would come out of the bottomless pit in the future. Read the scriptures again.

LDR

 

[dcookcan]

Its going on two thousand years and you are expecting him to arise from the bottomless pit? Dream on.

He will arise from the pit after he receives a fatal head wound. It doesn't say how long after, but I suspect it would be days not thousands of years.

 

[dcookcan]

LDR

It is obvious that you have not taken the time to read through the links I provided. The links will provide the subject of this thread. If you want to promote your own doctrine, then start a different thread. If you did already, good for you, it did not capture my interest enough to read it.

This thread is for those with an open mind (i.e. you are willing to consider other opinions) who want to discuss the topic at hand.

 

[LastDayRemnant]

No offence, but i will take the word of God over your links and what i posted is relevent since it is talking about the antichrist. And whether you want to accept it or not the bible is clear about it being someone before AD96.

LDR

 

[dcookcan]

No offence, but i will take the word of God over your links and what i posted is relevent since it is talking about the antichrist. And whether you want to accept it or not the bible is clear about it being someone before AD96.

LDR

No offense taken and none intended. You are choosing to interpret eschatology through the "glasses" that you are wearing (Your insistence that the AC was someone who existed before AD 96). I gave scriptural arguements as to why I belive you are wrong, which you conveniently avoided. Take your interpretation elsewhere or give me some solid proof as to why Prince Charles does not fit the prophecies. (Something other than the AD96 arguement, because that has already been covered.)

 

[LastDayRemnant]

Have you really read rev, where it talks about the beast? I gave you what the bible says about him and you don't accept it. Is Prince Charles roman?
Another funny thing is you said this thread was for someone with an open mind, which you obviously don't have. I believed like you did once and i was trying to make everybody out to be the antichrist. Kissinger,etc, but the bible gives a clear description of him. Take the time to read about the beast and let it sink in who it is talking about. And this isn't my personal doctrine as there are many who believe the way i do.... I let the scriptures speak for themselves.... I will leave this thread now and you can continue your search for the antichrist.

LDR

 

[dcookcan]

Have you really read rev, where it talks about the beast? I gave you what the bible says about him and you don't accept it. Is Prince Charles roman?
Another funny thing is you said this thread was for someone with an open mind, which you obviously don't have. I believed like you did once and i was trying to make everybody out to be the antichrist. Kissinger,etc, but the bible gives a clear description of him. Take the time to read about the beast and let it sink in who it is talking about. And this isn't my personal doctrine as there are many who believe the way i do.... I let the scriptures speak for themselves.... I will leave this thread now and you can continue your search for the antichrist.

LDR

I have read the Revelation many times. You gave me one vague reference to th AC from the Revelation only. Prophecies on the AC are found in many books of the Bible. Why don't you read them and bring them into context.

You are obviously taking my words out of context as well, since I did not state that I make everyone out to be the AC. I stated that I believe Prince Charles is a good candidate based on the links I provided (which, by the way, are not my articles. They are from two different sources that compliment each other.) If you cannot stay on topic (Is Prince Charles the AC?) and give relevant scriptural proof, then just go away. Go promote your theory in a different thread.

I am not searching for the AC, but I am willing to discuss why Prince Charles is or is not a good candidate.

Does anyone else have some relevant input?

 

[dcookcan]

Is Prince Charles roman?

Sorry, I did not answer this in the previous post. Yes he is, but you would have known that if you would have even glanced at the links I provided.

 

[cubedbee]

Is Prince Charles roman?

Sorry, I did not answer this in the previous post. Yes he is, but you would have known that if you would have even glanced at the links I provided.

No, Charles is not Roman. Your first link says that he is, but does not substantiate it. Your second link is causing my browser to crash, so I can't read it. However, Charles is British. The UK is not Rome. So Charles is not Roman.

 

[dcookcan]

No, Charles is not Roman. Your first link says that he is, but does not substantiate it. Your second link is causing my browser to crash, so I can't read it. However, Charles is British. The UK is not Rome. So Charles is not Roman.

Thanks for the intelligent response B-cubed. If you follow the current thinking on who is the revived Roman empire, it is the EU, of which, UK is definately a part. The UK has not bought into the Euro yet because they think the pound sterling will never lose its value.

So Prince Charles is a Roman prince. It is especially interesting that he wants to lead the EU, not just the UK. The second link contains the table of contents and selected text from the book "The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea" by Tim Cohen. You can google it and find other references. The book goes into great detail in how Prince Charles is a good candidate for the Antichrist.

If you are trying to be technical on Roman citizenship, then I doubt you will find any in the world who actually have Roman citizenship (Catholicism doesn't count). The people who live in Rome today are Itallian.

 

[LastDayRemnant]

If you are trying to be technical on Roman citizenship, then I doubt you will find any in the world who actually have Roman citizenship (Catholicism doesn't count). The people who live in Rome today are Itallian.

Unless of course you go by what the bible says that he was before AD 96.

LDR

 

[Lyric's Dad]

The beast (antichrist) has to be someone who was alive BEFORE AD 96.
Look at the qualifications to be the antichrist.

Remember it is AD 96 when the Angel is talking to John. That is very important to remember.

Rev,17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

He was before AD 96, then wasn't alive in AD 96 and then he will come out of the bottemless pit in the future.

Rev,17
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So it says the beast is dead in AD 96 and then it goes on to say that five kings have fallen. So it has to be one of the fallen kings BEFORE AD 96.

Like the Jews of that day, some people are unable to see that the prophecies are ones that are to come down the road. It is right there in black and white but some refuse to see it. There are many prophecies pertaining to the end times that have not occured. The idea that everything came to conclusion in 70 a.d. is fallacy. If nothing else, if satan has been bound, he sure has a looooooooooooooong chain.

No, it is still yet to happen...

 

[LastDayRemnant]

The beast (antichrist) has to be someone who was alive BEFORE AD 96.
Look at the qualifications to be the antichrist.

Remember it is AD 96 when the Angel is talking to John. That is very important to remember.

Rev,17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

He was before AD 96, then wasn't alive in AD 96 and then he will come out of the bottemless pit in the future.

Rev,17
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So it says the beast is dead in AD 96 and then it goes on to say that five kings have fallen. So it has to be one of the fallen kings BEFORE AD 96.

Like the Jews of that day, some people are unable to see that the prophecies are ones that are to come down the road. It is right there in black and white but some refuse to see it. There are many prophecies pertaining to the end times that have not occured. The idea that everything came to conclusion in 70 a.d. is fallacy. If nothing else, if satan has been bound, he sure has a looooooooooooooong chain.

No, it is still yet to happen...

I'm not saying that the beast has already come. I'm saying he was someone before AD96 who will be the beast in the future coming out of the bottomless pit just like the bible says.... i.e Nero Ceasar

LDR

 

[Vic C.]

... Or Adolph Hitler, who actually died of a head wound and fits the ancestry and the other qualifications of antichrist . :-D

The seventh beast empire was post AD 96 and was part of the Revelation prophecy. I don't believe prophecy dictates he MUST be someone that was pre-AD 96.

 

[Cameron]

Yes,
Ancestory is important.

I'm willing to be open-endedon the topic.

The third option is someone future.

The Nero option requiressome serious supernatural intervention so I'm the most skeptical about that one.

The Hitler option has legs, because the Soviets were notorious for saving dead people's parts and preserving them. it is not out of the realm of possibility that his DNA has been preserved and could be used to fertilize an egg.

The future option is still valid assuming that the 7th empire is an extension of the 6th and exists for a short time (ie. first half of the 70th Seven) to then give birth to the 8th.

 

[LastDayRemnant]

I'll respond to Vic and Cameron in the same post here. Vic ,you say you don't think that the beast has to be before AD 96. I have to disagree and here is why. According to this scripture he has to be before the time the Angel is talking to John.

Here it says five are fallen,
Rev,17
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space

Then it goes on to say that the beast WAS and is NOT.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So the Angel just told John that the beast was before their conversation and he had also just told him that five kings had fallen before their conversation. So it has to be one of those five fallen kings before their conversation.

I really think that point is pretty clear.


Ok Cameron, you think it would take "to much" supernatural power for it to be Nero. How much difference would it be to raise somebody from the dead 2000 years old as compared to raising somebody who is say 100 years in the grave. If you look how much supernatural power the antichrist has...fire from heaven and it says no one will be able to make war with him. It says the devil gives him his power and authority. Also it says he is coming out of the bottomless pit so i don't think age will effect it whatsoever. Look at what happened when Jesus died.

Matthew 27
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

It says their bodies arose , not their spirits and they went into town.
It doesn't say how long they had been in the grave but once the body is decayed then it really doesn't matter in time. Their bodies had to be supernaturally changed.

 

[Vic C.]

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

and the beast that was... and is of the seven. It can be read either way. Since it it a futuristic prophecy, I read it that way.

Because John mentions the whole seven and not just the first five or six, I have to conclude the "that was" refers to one of the seven. I can't conclude the past means pre-96 AD, since this was a future prophecy.

Don't take this the wrong way, but in an earlier post somewhere in the End Times Forum, you said it is one of the first five. That leaves out Nero. I bring this up only for clarification.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ive#188282

OK, five are fallin and the beast was and is not which means he is one of those fallin five.

All this may be a moot point since it is believed that Nero died of either a wound to the neck or chest.