Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Could Barack Obama be the Antichrist?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

P- John is in Heaven this whole time, therefore the temple must also be in Heaven this whole time. When he measures the temple, he is not on earth.

The issue here is that you are not taking Revelation literally, but figuratively. What guidelines do you use, when studying your Bible, as to whether or not to take something literally or figuratively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

The fact that John is to measure the temple shows he is dealing with a physical temple, not a spiritual one. Also, Daniel, the Gospels, 2 Thessalonians and Revelation all refer to a literal endtimes temple that will be defiled by the Antichrist. It is not referring to the church because the church was a mystery not even mentioned in the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
P- John is in Heaven this whole time, therefore the temple must also be in Heaven this whole time. When he measures the temple, he is not on earth.

The issue here is that you are not taking Revelation literally, but figuratively. What guidelines do you use, when studying your Bible, as to whether or not to take something literally or figuratively?

So the Beast and the dragon are literal? Are they not a man/nation and Satan being referred to figuratively?

First of all I humble myself and pray for guidance. Then I look for context when reading. For example the phrase "Come up hither." Taken as it is you then must ask, who is being told to come up? Looking at the verse, we see that it is being directed at John. John was called up, not John and the seven Churches of chapters 1-3, just John. What then is he being called up to? To see the things that are future events. Sense God is the only one that can see future events (because it is He that has ordained the future) John can not come into the presence of God in the flesh so for him to be in the spirit is very reasonable. We do know that while John is in the spirit here yet he does not stay here. He has a Revelation to to share with the Churches. Therefore he is there for one purpose, to get God's Revelation of Christ return and the events surrounding that return and bring it back to the Churches (as is affirmed in chapter 22).
Revelation 4
1After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.
2And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right...some is figurative, some is literal...you compare scripture with scripture to figure out which is which. Jerry is right in how he is interpreting it because he is looking at the entire Bible to explain Revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The fact that John is to measure the temple shows he is dealing with a physical temple' date=' not a spiritual one. Also, Daniel, the Gospels, 2 Thessalonians and Revelation all refer to a literal endtimes temple that will be defiled by the Antichrist. It is not referring to the church because the church was a mystery not even mentioned in the OT.[/quote']
Thank you Jerry, for your gracious reply. Just as there are two witnesses there will be a temple at Jerusalem. That temple will not be built to house the ark of the covenant nor be a place that God will fill with His smoke. It is built for one purpose. Remember what happened at Jerusalem when Jesus gave up the Ghost? The Earth quake then the rending of the vale that closed up the Holy Place. That temple is no longer honored by God. He will never dwell in a building built by man's hand again. The purpose of the temple at Jerusalem is for symbolic use by the Antichrist. The temple that God is concerned about is the Church. That is the temple that John measures. I have shown that John has said that Antichrist comes out of the Church. 1John 2:18&19. Then Antichrist introduces himself to the world as God by allowing the Jewish temple rebuilt. The Jews will be given a time of peace so this can be accomplished. They reject him when he goes into the "Holy Place" (actually it is not honored by God as such, sense the vale was rent). The only "Holy Place" honored by God now is where His Smoke (Holy Spirit) now fills the hearts of men.

The two witnesses are the Church.

Did not the Children of Israel contain the Temple?

Did not the Temple contain the Word of God as Law?

Is not the Church containing God's Word?

Is not the Law now written in the fleshly tables of the heart?

Therefore the Church is the temple that is called up in Rev chapter 11.

Now ask yourself this.

Why would God honor a temple built with hands again when He tore it open at His Son's death? The thing not honored can not be desecrated because it has no value to God or man.

The thing honored can only be the Church. It is the only thing that can be desecrated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Right...some is figurative' date=' some is literal...you compare scripture with scripture to figure out which is which. Jerry is right in how he is interpreting it because he is looking at the entire Bible to explain Revelation.[/quote']

:hmm And I am not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Antichrist can't come into your heart and defile it (nor can he defile the whole "church") - however, he can defile a literal temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The Antichrist can't come into your heart and defile it (nor can he defile the whole "church") - however' date=' he can defile a literal temple.[/quote']That is exactly what the people in Jeremiah's time thought about their temple. However the people of God were far from Him and God spewed them out and the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

Jerry,

Thank you very much for your reply and may God's grace go with you. I can see that we are going to go back and forth with this from now until Christ does call us out. That timing is His and His alone to know. We can only do what John said in Revelation, "Even so come, Lord Jesus". When that Day is here I know that you and I will be standing with the Lord we love.

Now as to the subject of the thread (as I am guilty of derailing it, my apologies to the OP) I would like to say this, Daniel gives us this little bit of insight as to the Antichrist's s*xual orientation. Daniel 10:37
37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Unless Obama is in the closet, he does not met the criteria of that verse. However it would be amiss for me not to mention the world wide push to formalize Gay rights. The World is setting itself up for his coming in on the world stage. There are other verses that would show that he could not be him. His father is African and as such he is not of European descent. His mother is but I am not sure that counts as lineage in the Biblical sense. Besides, what makes anyone think that the Antichrist is American? I believe this type of question started with Reagan. All because his name fit the numbers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not saying that I think of Obama as being a candidate for the antichrist. Nor is what I am going to say a definite statement, but a question. As for Daniel 37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. It starts out by saying he will not regard the God of his fathers. It then says that he will not regard any god. Yet he will build the temple and walk in it. This to me says he outwardly will to begin with have a regard to God, but will then desacrate it. But then to my question. Several have said it cannot be Obama because of him being married. I am not saying this line is incorrect. But is it realy showing regard to the desire for women to openly say that sodomites should be able to marry?? That they should be looked on as being just as good as a straight individual?? Or have most all of our polatitions shown a lack of regard in pushing for sodomite rights??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I am not saying that I think of Obama as being a candidate for the antichrist. Nor is what I am going to say a definite statement' date=' but a question. As for Daniel 37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. It starts out by saying he will not regard the God of his fathers. It then says that he will not regard any god. Yet he will build the temple and walk in it. This to me says he outwardly will to begin with have a regard to God, but will then desacrate it. But then to my question. Several have said it cannot be Obama because of him being married. I am not saying this line is incorrect. But is it realy showing regard to the desire for women to openly say that sodomites should be able to marry?? That they should be looked on as being just as good as a straight individual?? Or have most all of our polatitions shown a lack of regard in pushing for sodomite rights??[/quote']
What has caused God to bring Wrath upon a nation? Or on the whole world?
Homosexuality, witchcraft, Sacrifice of Children/babies, idolatry and self worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members
Back to the OP...

Barack Obama is married and has children and he does regard or at least publicly acknowledge God (or a god).


Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Since verses 3 and 4 of Daniel 11 are without a doubt speaking of Alexander the Great, I don't see how verse 37 could be about the Anti-Christ, since the context is that it is about one of the successors to A the G.

Even if it were speaking about the Anti-Christ, there are several reasons this still wouldn't preclude BO. It's been rumored that he's actually a homosexual. If he's bisexual, then that would fit the verse. Also, it's conceivable that by the time he gains that much power, he'll could very well have disolved the institution of marriage (something Liberals have been dying to do), which would also then allow him to fit the description.

I've been seeing more and more how Obama actualy does fit the position and character of the anti-Christ. His church teaches that one can be both a Moslem and a Christian. He was raised as a Moslem (in spite of his denials) and the Moslem world behaves as if he's one of them. Therefore he could position himself as the unifier of all religions under one, a position Moslems would see as a route to convert everyone to Islam, since it's within the teachings of Islam to decieve peple in order to convert them to Islam. By the time they realize he won't be doing that, their key leaders could be swayed or killed so that the rest (as they've been violently taught) will follow along like lemmings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Politics never seems to amaze me :puzzled: He is bisexual? and a Muslim? the anti-christ? Remember, Vote for Bush he will help the Christian right! Has he? Vote for McCain because he attends what church? Talks about God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not many people here like Mcain. What I have seen here is that most people here are real conservative independants. Correct me if I am wrong. I don't think Obama is the anti-christ. I know he is the most liberal in the senate and is pro-abortion. Anyone who says theys are pro-abortion in my book is not saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_a ... t_id=13594 ...

Despite its being just five a.m. in Israel, the gallery was packed. The atmosphere was decidedly festive, the air crackling with anticipation. Yet none of this felt familiar or comfortable but was actually quite jarring. This was because of the two huge campaign posters dominating the foreground, with the Hebrew legend printed in what the Yiddish phrase calls "letters for reading by moonlight": BARACK OBAMA.

Seeing his name spelled out in that language, my mind naturally drifted to the wordplay possibilities. The Hebrew word BARACK means lightning, OH means or and BAMA means a platform, used in the Bible to refer to unauthorized altars, often idolatrous ones. "Lightning or an idolatrous altar?" Now there was a question that encapsulated the Barack Obama phenomenon very nicely.

To see this holiest place reduced to the theater of the ego was disconcerting....

I don't point out the likeliness because I don't like Obama, but because I see him fitting into exactly the kind of role I've always seen the anti-christ would have to fill in order to gain the power the Bible prophecies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...