Could Barak Obama be the Anti Christ?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by shag

Anybody know anything, or relative scripture, having to do with the dead bodies that came out of the graves and were walkin around, at the end the crucifixion? (in case it was spoken of outside of the gospels, that I'm unaware of)

The question is always asked, "What happened to the bodies of the saints that rose at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion?" Here is what one commentary that predated the popularization of Dispensationalism said concerning this:

"What became of them after they had entered into the city whether they again died or ascended to heaven, is not revealed, and conjecture is vain." (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible –Albert Barnes 1798-1870)

The Bible does NOT tell specifically what became of those saints. But it does give many indicators that tell us what their probable outcome. We know they did not ascended with Jesus and we know they did not live forever in their physical bodies. Remember, Jesus is the “first that should rise from the dead” and the “firstfruits of them that slept” (see Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23; Revelations 1:5; Colossians 1:18). Since they arose three days before Jesus, if their resurrection was like Jesus’, then instead of Jesus, they would have been the “first” to rise. Since this is not what the Bible describes, of course this position is impossible.

The Bible gives examples of people being brought back to life before Jesus’ resurrection (see Mark 5:35-42; Luke 7:12-15, Luke 8:49-55, Luke 7:22). One of these is found in the account of Jesus’ close friend, Lazarus (see John 11:1-45). He had been dead four days before Jesus raised him from his grave. Though alive again, nowhere does it say that Lazarus was expected to live forever in his “resurrected body.” His resurrection simply gave him more time to live in this life. Jesus did promise men and women could live forever; but nowhere are they promised they would do so in a physical body. Like Lazarus, the saints that arose at the time of Jesus’ Crucifixion were similarly raised from their graves, shown to be alive, and then lived their extra days. Later, when their appointed time came, they would again experience physical death. At that time their bodies would be returned to the grave, where their bodies would decay and return to the earth.

[shag]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

The Kingdom was, is, and is coming. It is and isn't yet. It is inbreaking into history and won't be fully realized until that Day.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so perhaps my comments are redundant. If so, sorry.

Those he was talking to would (future tense)see the son of man coming (in his Kingdom) before they died, was actually what thru me, not so much the Kingdom part.

[Falla39]

There is a major difference in being (physically) in the church building and
being in Christ. Surrounded by Him as a dot in a circle. Safe, secure in the
Shelter of His Presence and Power.
There is a reason the Word tells us that "everyone that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord is NOT going to enter in". Ouote by Falla39.

Correction.

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by aak1972

From what I can recall from the scriptures there are a lot of similarities in Obama and what the Bible says the AC will be. First he will use deception will stand on a peace platform and be out of the east. You cant get much more anti-christ as the Muslim faith. IF he proves to be Muslim.

Well, I'll be the first to say, I do not like Obama. Deffinatly did not vote for him, think he is a horrible train wreck for the country.

BUT....... I think only the third of your examples here are Obama specific.

Every modern polotician uses deception. and every one of them tries to convince the people that they can bring peace sometime during there term.

Even bush who plainly declared after 911 that the war could go on for many years, believed and promoted the beliefe that his actions would ultimatly bring peace.

Could Obama become UN leader (Prime minister??) after his (hopefully only 4 year) term as US president? maybe. Could he then fit the bill more closely? probably.

[Falla39]

Quote:
Originally Posted by deacon blues,

TRF it all happened in 70 AD. We are now living in the "new earth"! Isn't that exciting. The new earth
is here and its full of murder, corruption, child abuse and homosexuality. Isn't Christ's Kingdom wonderful????????

Many times children in the church do not realize the privilege they have or
had, to be born into a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
(purchased, possession). We should be showing forth the praises of HIM who has called
us out of darkness(the absence of light) into His marvellous light: which in times past
were not a people, but are now (presently) the people of God: which had not obtained
mercy, but now(presently) have obtained mercy.(as in 1Peter 2:9,10) Quote by Falla39.


Adam and Eve probably did not understand/perceive what the "Garden" really was, or
its worth/value, until they were cast/driven out! Perhaps they took it for granted. How
many third and fourth generations, raised Apostolic, do not or have never realized just
what the "Truth/Church" meant until they found themselves outside, living in a world of
darkness (absence of light/truth). What happens to the children/grandchildren of those
who were "born in king's houses/households of faith). Knowing what I know and having
been raised in a household of faith, it would be easy to see why I could find myself
wailing and gnashing my teeth to see what had become of my children and grandchildren
and future generations of mine, simply because I refused to hear what my elders tried to
pass on to me. WHO would care more than those that birthed me, nurtured and cared
for me in the home and in the church.
When I see churches, organizations, homes and families divided on every side, I recall
that a house/kingdom divided against itself CANNOT stand, I realize there is trouble and
danger ahead!

This is not to offend anyone, but to stir up our minds before it is too late.

Matt.8:8-12:

8 But the centurion replied to Him, Lord, I am not worthy or fit to have You come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant boy will be cured.

9 For I also am a man subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my slave, Do this, and he does it.

10 When Jesus heard him, He marveled and said to those who followed Him who adhered steadfastly to Him, conforming to His example in living and, if need be, in dying also], I tell you truly, I have not found so much faith as this with anyone, even in Israel.

11 I tell you, many will come from east and west, and will sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

12 While the sons and heirs of the kingdom will be driven out into the darkness outside, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.

Matt.13:13-17

13 This is the reason that I speak to them in parables: because having the power of seeing, they do not see; and having the power of hearing, they do not hear, nor do they grasp and understand.

14 In them indeed is the process of fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: You shall indeed hear and hear but never grasp and understand; and you shall indeed look and look but never see and perceive.

15 For this nation's heart has grown gross (fat and dull), and their ears heavy and difficult of hearing, and their eyes they have tightly closed, lest they see and perceive with their eyes, and hear and comprehend the sense with their ears, and grasp and understand with their heart, and turn and I should heal them.

16 But blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are your eyes because they do see, and your ears because they do hear.

17 Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men [men who were upright and in right standing with God] yearned to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Matt.13:36-43

36 Then He left the throngs and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him saying, Explain to us the parable of the darnel in the field.

37 He answered, He Who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.

38 The field is the world, and the good seed means the children of the kingdom; the darnel is the children of the evil one,

39 And the enemy who sowed it is the devil. The harvest is the close and consummation of the age, and the reapers are angels.

40 Just as the darnel (weeds resembling wheat) is gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the close of the age.

41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of offense persons by whom others are drawn into error or sin] and all who do iniquity and act wickedly,

42And will cast them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and wailing and grinding of teeth.

43 Then will the righteous (those who are upright and in right standing with God) shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him who has ears [to hear] be listening, and let him consider and perceive and understand by hearing.

Blessings,

Falla39

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Point is this. If someone wants to see the antiChrist, it is there.
I have heard and seen so many predictions (as have many of us) that it is actually somewhat comical (and sad) as to how they come up with the latest and greatest new pop antiChrist.
If you ever need me to antichrist someone for you, let me know. I can find a formula to postively identify nearly anyone.
I hope I have not offended anyone and I hope you can see my point.

Didnt offend me.
I saw humor seeping through the cracks from the start.
Like our brother said, that last post confirmed it. I was actualy thinking of making a formula to say "Bowas" and "charlie brown" were 6,6,6, and had to be antichrist LOL. But you came out of hiding first

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Shag, I know what history tells us. 70 AD happened. But saying that this event was the ultimate fulfillment of "what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" falls short.

Deacon Blues, the “end of the WORLD,” as found in Mat 24:3, is asked differently in the other accounts of this same Mount Olivet message.

Mat 24:1-3
(1) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to SHOW HIM THE BUILDINGS OF THE TEMPLE.
(2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all THESE THINGS? verily I say unto you, There shall not be LEFT HERE one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
(3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall THESE THINGS be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Luk 21:5-7
(5) And as some SPAKE OF THE TEMPLE, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
(6) As for THESE THINGS WHICH YE BEHOLD, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
(7) And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall THESE THINGS be? and what sign will there be when THESE THINGS shall come to pass?

Mar 13:1-4
(1) And as he went OUT OF THE TEMPLE, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and WHAT BUILDINGS ARE HERE!
(2) And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou THESE GREAT BUILDINGS? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
(3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over AGAINST THE TEMPLE, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
(4) Tell us, when shall THESE THINGS be? and what shall be the sign when all THESE THINGS shall be fulfilled?

It is evident that the destruction of Herod’s Temple and adjoining buildings is the focus of the discussion. What Jesus said about their demise prompted the disciple’s question. From that point on there isn’t any scripture where Jesus switches from talking about the buildings standing then to another Temple in some far off future date. This especially becomes clear when you recognize that the Bible NEVER mentions such a Temple.

As far as the reference to “the end of the WORLD”; the Greek word whereby this “world” is translated is “aiōn” (G165). Strong’s defines this as: properly AN AGE; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; SPECIFICALLY (JEWISH) A MESSIANIC PERIOD (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end).

When taken in context with the statement about the Temple’s demise, and in relation to the Jewish identity with their Temple, and with all that Jesus and His apostles wrote concerning the passing of the Old Testament, it is easy to see how Jesus wasn’t referring to an ending of the “physical earth,” but instead an ending of the age of the Mosaic approach to God.

The following translations of Mat 24:3 confirm this:
(AMP) …and of the end (the completion, the consummation) of the age?
(Darby) … and the completion of the age?
(ESV) … and of the close of the age?"
(HCSB) … and of the end of the age?"
(HNV) …and of the end of the age?"
(LITV) … and of the end of the age?
(NASB) … and of the end of the age?"
(WNT) … and of the Close of the Age?"
(YLT) … and of the full end of the age?'

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Did Jesus come as a result?

Yes, He did, just as He said He would. This has already been discussed at length. You can say you don’t agree, but you’ve yet to supply the scriptures from which you base your opinion. Until this is done, your opinion is just that, your opinion (See Pro 3:5-6; Pro 14:12; 2 Cor 13:5).

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Did the rapture take place?

Show me where the Bible mentions anything about a secret rapture. The Bible does mention a resurrection. Daniel aligned the resurrection with the time of Jerusalem’s AD70 judgment (See Dan 12:1-3). Since that time, as believers die, they go on to be with the Lord. That is why in the New Covenant death has no sting, and the grave has no victory (1 Cor 15:55)!

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Did the world come to an end? Did "armies" surround Jerusalem or did an army, the Roman army surround Jeru in 70 AD?

Again, “world” is “age,” so "YES" it did.

Armies or army? This is a first. If you knew anything about the nature of the Roman army you would not be asking this.

Acts 10:1 says, “Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band.” This group of Roman soldiers was a hodgepodge of the differing countries that comprised the Roman Republic. Titus also commanded an army that would have included soldiers from many differing nations.

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Zechariah talks of a Jerusalem that would be a cup of trembling to all nations and that He would return to defend her. Did that happen in 70 AD?

Passover was both a time of judgment and protection. Those without the blood received judgment, those with the blood received protection. Jesus warned His disciples to flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by soldiers (See Luk 21:20-21). Those with Jesus’ blood fled and were protected. Those who rebelled against Jesus’ blood remained and received judgment.

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Never before could these prophecies be fulfilled for 1900 years until 1948. The potential for the world to come against Israel and Jerusalem is now a reality. The potential for a rebuilt Temple, for multinational armies taking action against individual nations, for global economies and a universal means to buy and sell, for global religion is here like never before.

DB, please show where 1948 is mentioned in the Bible. Every passage in the Bible that talked of Israel’s entrance or return to the “Promise Land,” ALWAYS required the nation to repent of their rebellion against God. DB, did Israel repent for their rebellion against God?

Originally Posted by deacon blues

70 AD happened. Jesus coming back didn't.

Again, you’ve yet to show where this is true, and what you’ve provided here certainly doesn’t do it either.

[deacon blues]

Can you name any credible scholarship that dates Revelation before 70 AD? I have never heard until now that ANYONE dated Revelation pre-70 AD. I can certainly see why you all would have to do that because it would topple the whole house of cards, regardless of all the other interpretations in other books.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Perhaps the purpose of the book is much more broad than we try to make it through our eschatological hermeneutics. Perhaps we've read much more meaning into symbolism and figurative speech and apocalyptic imagery than we were ever meant to by God.

I believe the point is to show where we are today as kings and priests seated with Christ over the earth. It is to show us that God is with us, if He was with us at the start of the church in that first church generation when God kept them safe from Jerusalem's attacks.

I see the lesson pinpointed in Rev 12 when the saints stood by the blood and their testimonies and threw satan down. Daniel 7 shows that through the Lord's atonement, the CHURCH took Nero down.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Can you name any credible scholarship that dates Revelation before 70 AD? I have never heard until now that ANYONE dated Revelation pre-70 AD. I can certainly see why you all would have to do that because it would topple the whole house of cards, regardless of all the other interpretations in other books.

Credible scholars? How about these:

* James MacDonald: Date of the Apocalypse From Internal Evidence (1869)
* J.D. Michaelis - The Apocalypse (1801 English Edition)
* George Edmundson (1913) "(The Church in Rome in the First Century)

Early Church Commentaries:

Arethas
"For there were many, yea, a countless multitude from among the Jews, who believed in Christ : as even they testify, who said to St Paul on his arrival at Jerusalem : Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe. (Acts xxi. 20.) And He who gave this revelation to the Evangelist, declares, that these men shall not share the destruction inflicted by the Romans. For the ruin brought by the Romans had not yet fallen upon the Jews, when this Evangelist received these prophecies : and he did not receive them at Jerusalem, but in Ionia near Ephesus. For after the suffering of the Lord he remained only fourteen years at Jerusalem, during which time the tabernacle of the mother of the Lord, which had conceived this Divine offspring, was preserved in this temporal life, after the suffering and resurrection of her incorruptible Son. For he continued with her as with a mother committed to him by the Lord. For after her death it is reported that he no longer chose to remain in Judaea, but passed over to Ephesus, where, as we have said, this present Apocalypse also was composed ; which is a revelation of future things, inasmuch as forty years after the ascension of the Lord this tribulation came upon the Jews."

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Epiphanies (A. D. 315-403)
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)

Irenaeus' Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603).

Tertullian
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

Futurists:

David E. Aune (1977)
“The keystone of Robinson’s enterprise is an argument from silence: none of the books of the New Testament refers, either implicitly or explicitly, to the catastrophic event of the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman legions under Titus in A.D.70. Had they written after that date, so the argument runs, they would surely have at least alluded to that crucial event.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John A.T. Robinson, “When Was the New Testament Written?” Christianity Today 21, April 15, 1977; p. 43)

“On balance, the virtues far outweigh the faults. The book deserves wide circulation among students of the New Testament, since scholarly opinion (whether conservative or liberal) should regularly examine its assumptions and conclusions. In passing, it is perhaps important to note that Robinson makes elaborate use of the scholarship of Theodore Zahn, perhaps the most brilliant conservative New Testament scholar in the last century.. Let us hope that he will be heard.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John A.T. Robinson, “When Was the New Testament Written?” Christianity Today 21, April 15, 1977; p. 45)

G.R. Beasley-Murray (1983)
”The traditional belief that Revelation was written near the close of the reign of the Emperor Domitian, about A.D.96, is likely to be right, thought it is not impossible that it was written in the confused period that immediately followed Nero’s death in A.D.68.” (“Preaching the Eschatological Texts,” in Biblical Preaching: An Expositor’s Treasury, ed.; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, p. 356)

continued...